Federal Register Vol. 83, No.27,

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0155, dated August 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0026.

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

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0026; Product Identifier 2016-NM-157-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any on-condition actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 46426; October 5, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0523 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, KS, and Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:

Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, KS; removing the Fort Scott NDB from the legal description; and removing the extension north of the NDB;

And within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7.6-mile radius) of Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS; removing the Phillipsburg NDB from the legal description; and removing the extension southeast of the NDB.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Fort Scott NDB and the Phillipsburg NDB, the cancellation of the associated instrument approach procedures, and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled airspace is necessary for safety and the management of IFR operations at these airports.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the western United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0344 (82 FR 41182; August 30, 2017). The NPRM proposed to amend two VOR Federal airways, V-113 and V-244, in the western United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

The commenter wrote that V-113 should be further revised to remove the Priest, CA, VOR from the route because that VOR is decommissioned.

FAA response: The Priest VOR is in a shutdown status pending formal decommissioning. This rule, in part, corrects the coordinates defining the PATYY intersection in V-113, while further amendment of V-113 is being developed for a later date. In the interim, RNAV-equipped aircraft can continue to navigate along V-113,1 or they can fly T-329 north-bound or south-bound between the Paso Robles VORTAC and the Panoche VORTAC, at which point they can resume V-113. For non-RNAV equipped aircraft, ATC could provide radar vectors or issue alternative airway routing.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified an error within a set of True (T) and Magnetic (M) coordinates along V-113. The intersection coordinates “INT Modesto 208°(T) 19(M) and El Nido 277°(T) 262°(M) radials” were misidentified as PATYY intersection in the NPRM; when in fact these coordinates are for WINDY intersection. The FAA is changing the coordinates to “INT Modesto 208° (T) 191° (M) and El Nido 298° (T) 283° (M)” as the correct coordinates for PATYY intersection.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend VOR Federal Airways V-113 and V-244 in the western United States due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Manteca and Maxwell VOR facilities. The routes are outlined below.

V-113: V-113 currently extends between Morro Bay, CA (MQO) and Lewistown, MT (LWT) with a gap between Panoche, CA (PXN) and Linden, CA (LIN). The FAA is filling the gap between Panoche, CA (PXN) and Linden, CA (LIN). The unaffected portions of the existing route will remain as charted.

V-244: V-244 currently extends between Oakland, CA (OAK) and Salina, KS, (SLN). The FAA is relocating the segment of the route from Oakland, CA by rerouting the airway approximately 10 nautical miles north of the previous airway until tied back into the previous route at Coaldale, NV. The unaffected portion of the existing route will remain as charted.

All radials in the regulatory text route descriptions below are stated in True degrees.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

The FAA has determined that this action modifying VOR Federal airways V-113 and V-244 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

A. Background

The U.S. Census Bureau is committed to counting every person in the 2020 Census once, only once, and in the right place. The fundamental reason that the decennial census is conducted is to fulfill the Constitutional requirement (Article I, Section 2) to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states.1 For a fair and equitable apportionment, it is crucial that the Census Bureau counts everyone in the right place during the decennial census.

The residence criteria are used to determine where people are counted during each decennial census. Specific residence situations are included with the criteria to illustrate how the criteria are applied.

The Census Bureau's enumeration procedures are guided by the constitutional and statutory mandates to count all residents of the several states. [U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 2, cl.3, Title 13, United States Code, Section 141.] The state in which a person resides and the specific location within that state is determined in accordance with the concept of “usual residence,” which is defined by the Census Bureau as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time. This is not always the same as a person's legal residence, voting residence, or where they prefer to be counted. This concept of “usual residence” is grounded in the law providing for the first census, the Act of March 1, 1790, expressly specifying that persons be enumerated at their “usual place of abode.”

Determining usual residence is straightforward for most people. However, given our nation's wide diversity in types of living arrangements, the concept of usual residence has a variety of applications. Some examples of these living arrangements include people experiencing homelessness, people with a seasonal/second residence, people in group facilities,2 people in the process of moving, people in hospitals, children in shared custody arrangements, college students, live-in employees, military personnel, and people who live in workers' dormitories.

Every decade, the Census Bureau undertakes a review of the Residence Criteria and Residence Situations to ensure that the concept of usual residence is interpreted and applied, consistent with the intent of the Census Act of 1790, which was authored by a Congress that included many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and directed that people were to be counted at their usual residence. This review also serves as an opportunity to identify new or changing living situations resulting from societal change, and to address those situations in the guidance in a way that is consistent with the concept of usual residence.

This decade, as part of the review, the Census Bureau requested public comment on the “2010 Census Residence Rule and Residence Situations” through the Federal Register (80 FR 28950) on May 20, 2015, to allow the public to recommend any changes they would like to be considered for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau received 252 comment submission letters or emails that contained 262 total comments. (Some comment submissions included comments or suggestions on more than one residence situation.)

On June 30, 2016, the Census Bureau published the “Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations” in the Federal Register (81 FR 42577).3 In that publication, the Census Bureau included a summary of comments on the May 2015 Federal Register document, as well as the Bureau's responses to those comments. During the 60-day comment period that ended on September 1, 2016, the Census Bureau received 77,958 comment submissions 4 that contained 77,995 total comments in response to the proposed residence criteria and situations. A summary of these comments and the Census Bureau's responses are included in section B of this document.

Section C of this document provides the Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations.5

On June 30, 2016, the Census Bureau published a document in the Federal Register asking for public comment on the “Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations.” Of the 77,995 comments received, 77,887 pertained to prisoners,6 and 44 pertained to overseas military personnel. There were four comments on health care facilities. There were three comments on each of the following residence situations: Foreign citizens in the United States, juvenile facilities, and people in shelters and/or experiencing homelessness. There were two comments on each of the following residence situations: Boarding school students, college students, group homes and residential treatment centers for adults, transitory locations, visitors on Census Day, people who live or stay in more than one place, merchant marine personnel, and religious group quarters. There was one comment on each of the rest of the residence situations [people away from their usual residence on Census Day (e.g., on vacation or business trip); people living outside the United States; people moving into or out of a residence around Census Day; people who are born or who die around Census Day; relatives and nonrelatives; residential schools for people with disabilities; housing for older adults; U.S. military personnel; and workers' residential facilities]. The Census Bureau also received one comment on the concept of usual residence, seven general comments on the overall residence criteria, and 18 comments on other issues not directly related to the residence criteria or any specific residence situation.

Of the 77,887 comments pertaining to prisoners, 77,863 suggested that prisoners should be counted at their home or pre-incarceration address. The rationales included in these comments were as follows.

• Almost all commenters either directly suggested, or alluded to the view, that counting prisoners at the prison inflates the political power of the area where the prison is located, and deflates the political power in the prisoners' home communities. These commenters stated that this distorts the redistricting process by allowing officials to count prisoners as “residents” of the districts where they are imprisoned, even though the prisoners are not allowed to vote during the time that they are confined in that district.

○ Similarly, many commenters suggested that counting prisoners away from their home address goes against the principle of equal representation. Some commenters more specifically suggested that the practice potentially violates the Voting Rights Act and/or the U.S. constitutional commitment to one person, one vote. A couple of commenters stated that the practice differs from certain international guidelines.

○ A few commenters stated that counting prisoners at the correctional facilities can also negatively impact the communities in which the prisons are located by distorting and/or complicating the redistricting process at the local level (e.g., county commissions, city councils, and school boards).

○ Some commenters stated that the current residence criteria for prisoners are inconsistent with certain states' laws regarding residency for elections (i.e., some state laws specifically say that a correctional facility is not a residence).

○ Some commenters stated that some states and many local governments already adjust their population data to remove prisoners when drawing their districts. However, these commenters also suggested that this “piecemeal” approach at the local level is inefficient and cannot fully resolve the issues associated with where prisoners are counted.

• Most commenters suggested that counting prisoners at the prison inaccurately represents the population counts and demographic characteristics of prisoners' home communities, as well as the communities where the prisons are located. These commenters stated that prisoners typically come from urban, underserved communities whose populations are disproportionately African-American and Latino, while prisons are more likely to be located in largely White (non-Hispanic) rural communities, far from the actual homes of the prisoners. Therefore, most commenters also suggested that counting prisoners at the prisons disproportionally harms communities with high proportions of minorities, by preventing their home communities from receiving their fair share of representation and funding.

• Many commenters stated that the incarcerated population has increased significantly in recent decades. Some commenters also stated that, throughout the long history of the decennial census, the Census Bureau has previously evolved and reevaluated its residence criteria in response to other historical changes in demographics and normative living situations (e.g., the 1950 change to how college students were counted). Therefore, they suggested that the changes in the prisoner population and patterns of prison locations during recent decades warrant a similar evolution of the residence criteria.

• Some commenters suggested that the Census Bureau should change its interpretation of the concept of “usual residence” (i.e., as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time), as it relates to incarcerated people. To support this suggestion, commenters used various rationales.

○ Some commenters suggested that prisoners do not have enduring social ties or allegiance to the community where they are incarcerated. To explain this, some commenters more specifically stated that prisoners cannot interact with the community where they are incarcerated, are there involuntarily, and generally do not plan to remain in that community upon their release. A few commenters also stated that the governmental representatives of the community where the prison is located do not serve the prisoners, or they stated that prisoners are not constituents of the community where the prison is located. These commenters further stated that prisoners rely, instead, on the representative services of the legislators in their pre-incarceration communities.

○ Some commenters suggested that the correctional facility where a prisoner is located on Census Day is not where a prisoner spends most of their time.

Some supported this suggestion by stating that counting incarcerated people at the facility in which they are housed on Census Day ignores the transient and temporary nature of incarceration. These commenters stated that incarcerated people are typically transferred multiple times between various correctional facilities during the time between when they are arrested and when they are released.

Some supported this suggestion by focusing on local jails. They stated that, while the length of incarceration for prison inmates is typically more than one year, about a third of all inmates (in prisons and jails) are jail inmates, and the typical length of incarceration for jail inmates is much shorter than one year (i.e., a few days to a few weeks). A few also stated that the majority of jail inmates have not been convicted of a crime, or stated that they are awaiting trial and presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A few supported this suggestion by stating that, if your measuring stick is the 10-year period for which the decennial census counts affect representation, funding, and policies, most prisoners are incarcerated for less than 10 years.

○ A few commenters suggested that multiple factors must be considered together when determining the correct place to count certain types of people, such as prisoners, who do not easily align with the standard definition of usual residence. Therefore, they stated that a one-size-fits-all approach of focusing solely on where people live and sleep most of the time is not appropriate for determining where to count prisoners.

○ A few commenters suggested that only prisoners who are serving long-term sentences, such as longer than six months or a year, should be counted at the facility, and that prisoners serving shorter terms should be counted at their usual residence outside of the facility.

• Some commenters suggested that the treatment of prisoners is inconsistent with the treatment of other residence situations in which people are temporarily living or staying away from their permanent address (e.g., travelers and snowbirds). A few stated that the proposed residence criteria make it appear as if the Census Bureau plans to count boarding school students, deployed military personnel, truck drivers, members of Congress, and/or juveniles in residential treatment facilities at their home address, even if they do not spend most of their time there.

• Some commenters suggested that the number/proportion of comments submitted on this issue indicates that there is an overwhelming consensus urging a change to how prisoners are counted in the census.

• A few commenters suggested that the Census Bureau has acknowledged the need to correct its own data by proposing to help states with post-census population adjustments.

○ Some of these commenters suggested that “this ad hoc approach is neither efficient nor universally implementable.” Some also stated that many states have laws that would prevent them from using such alternative data to adjust their Census counts for redistricting, and that many states may not have the resources to gather the necessary data to provide to the Census Bureau. Some also expressed concerns about the states' inability to provide data on federal prisoners and prisoners who are incarcerated in another state.

○ Therefore, some of these commenters suggested that the only way to implement a consistent solution for the entire United States is for the Census Bureau to change the way it counts prisoners. A few also suggested that the Census Bureau would be best able to accomplish this change if all correctional facilities (local, state, and federal) and/or all state and federal corrections departments were required to collect and maintain accurate records on each prisoner's home/pre-incarceration address.

Four comments were in support of counting prisoners at the correctional facility. All of these commenters suggested that the correctional facility is the prisoner's usual residence, or where they live and sleep most of the time (i.e., prisoners are usually in prison, or away from their pre-incarceration address, for relatively long periods of time, such as one year or more). One commenter further stated that, because people are usually sent to prison for more than one year, they are not considered to be only “temporary residents” of the prison under many government regulations (other than the Census Bureau's). One commenter suggested that it makes sense to count prisoners at the facility because the communities in which the facilities are located are responsible for providing emergency response and certain law enforcement services to those facilities, as well as providing road maintenance and hospitality services (e.g., hotels and restaurants) for the family and friends of the prisoners who travel to the facility for visitation.

One commenter suggested that counting prisoners at their “home address” would create unreasonable burden on the census process because of the considerable time and effort that would be necessary, both on the part of the facility administrators who would need to research and maintain the address records, and on the census enumerators who would need to collect and ensure the accuracy of the addresses. One commenter stated that any approach that would count prisoners somewhere other than the prison would likely result in a national undercount due to the difficulty in tracking inmates in transit. One commenter stated that it is not the Census Bureau's responsibility to facilitate states' redistricting activities beyond their currently proposed activities (i.e., providing the redistricting data file, identifying the group quarters counts at the block level, and the proposed option to geocode prisoner addresses if they are provided by the state to the Census Bureau).

Twenty comments were neutral regarding where to count prisoners, in that they did not state whether they thought that prisoners should be counted at the facility or at some other address. Many of these commenters stated the importance of equal representation for all. Some stated that prisoners should have the right to vote. A few further clarified that prisoners should have the right to vote if they are going to be counted as residents (of any place) for redistricting purposes, or vice versa (i.e., if prisoners do not have the right to vote, then they should not be counted). One specifically stated that incarcerated people should not be counted at all (either at the facility or elsewhere) because they committed a crime and are not legally eligible to vote. A few commenters stated concerns regarding the fairness or effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for correctional facilities (Sections C.13.e, C.15, and C.17.a). The practice of counting prisoners at the correctional facility is consistent with the concept of usual residence, as established by the Census Act of 1790. As noted in section A.1 of this document, “usual residence” is defined as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time, which is not always the same as their legal residence, voting residence, or where they prefer to be counted. Therefore, counting prisoners anywhere other than the facility would be less consistent with the concept of usual residence, since the majority of people in prisons live and sleep most of the time at the prison.

States are responsible for legislative redistricting. The Census Bureau works closely with the states and recognizes that some states have decided, or may decide in the future, to `move' their prisoner population back to the prisoners' pre-incarceration addresses for redistricting and other purposes. Therefore, following the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau plans to offer a product that states can request, in order to assist them in their goals of reallocating their own prisoner population counts. Any state that requests this product will be required to submit a data file (indicating where each prisoner was incarcerated on Census Day, as well as their pre-incarceration address) in a specified format. The Census Bureau will review the submitted file and, if it includes the necessary data, provide a product that contains supplemental information the state can use to construct alternative within-state tabulations for its own purposes. However, the Census Bureau will not use the state-provided data in this product to make any changes to the official decennial census counts.

The Census Bureau also plans to provide group quarters data after the 2020 Census sooner than it was provided after the 2010 Census. For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau released the Advance Group Quarters Summary File showing the seven major types of group quarters, including correctional facilities for adults and juvenile facilities. This early 7 release of data on the group quarters population was beneficial to many data users, including those in the redistricting community who must consider whether to include or exclude certain populations when redrawing boundaries as a result of state legislation. The Census Bureau is planning to incorporate similar group quarters information in the standard Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File for 2020.

Of the 44 comments received pertaining to the military overseas, 40 supported the Census Bureau proposal to treat military personnel who are temporarily deployed overseas on a short-term basis differently than military personnel who are stationed overseas on a more long-term basis. More specifically, most of these commenters suggested that military personnel who are deployed overseas should be counted at their usual residence in the United States where they were stationed at the time they were deployed, and included in the local community-level resident population counts.

Many commenters stated that counting deployed military personnel at their usual residence (where they are stationed) in the United States would more accurately reflect the social and economic impact that these personnel members have on the communities where they usually work, recreate, and reside. Many commenters similarly stated that deployed personnel should be counted at their usual residence in the United States in order to ensure that the communities surrounding military bases are able to obtain the necessary resources and funding to support the soldiers who serve our country and their families, as well as accurate data to inform community planning. These commenters stated that the aforementioned planning, funding, and other resources would support community services such as police and fire departments, schools, roads, parks, utilities, and other infrastructure and amenities.

Some commenters stated that deployments from specific military bases typically happen in surges to support specific events, such as combat missions or natural disasters. Therefore, these commenters suggested that, if an event like this happens around the time of the census enumeration, then the population of the community surrounding that military base would be grossly undercounted if the deployed personnel were not counted there. One commenter suggested that counting deployed personnel at their usual residence would produce more consistent results than counting them at their home of record because the Department of Defense records on military personnel members' home of record 8 were not well maintained prior to the 2010 Census.

Some commenters suggested that the military member's permanent duty station from which they were deployed is their usual residence (i.e., where they live and sleep most of the time), and some commenters stated that counting deployed personnel at their usual residence in the United States would be consistent with how the Census Bureau counts other people who are temporarily away for work purposes. A few commenters stated that deployments are typically short in duration, and one commenter stated that the Army plans to further shorten the length of deployments in the future. A few commenters stated that deployed personnel must return to their permanent duty station in the United States after the deployment ends, and a few commenters stated that many deployed personnel have families that live with them at their permanent duty station and maintain their residence while the military member is deployed.

Some commenters stated that many of the family members of deployed military were confused during the 2010 Census about whether they should count themselves at their usual residence because they were instructed that their deployed family member would be counted through administrative records, and they assumed the same would be true for them as well. One of these commenters stated that proposed residence guidance for how deployed personnel would be counted in the 2020 Census should reduce some of this confusion. However, all of these commenters encouraged the Census Bureau to conduct a strong communication and outreach program to ensure that all family members of deployed personnel are made aware of the fact that they still need to complete the census questionnaire for themselves.

One commenter expressed concern about footnote 5 in the proposed residence criteria documentation, which said: “The ability to successfully integrate the DOD data on deployed personnel into the resident population counts must be evaluated and confirmed prior to the 2020 Census.” The commenter was worried that the proposed change for counting deployed military might not be implemented if the research and evaluations are not completed before final decisions must be made, and they suggested that such research is not necessary because the Census Bureau already uses data from the Defense Manpower Data Center when producing annual population estimates at the national, state, and county levels. This commenter also recommended that if the proposed change for counting deployed military is implemented for the 2020 Census, then the Census Bureau should also ensure that the methodology used to produce the annual population estimates is revised accordingly.

One commenter expressed support for the proposal to include military and civilian employees of the U.S. government who are deployed or stationed/assigned overseas and are not U.S. citizens (but must be legal U.S. residents to meet the requirements for federal employment) in the Federally Affiliated Overseas Count, because these people have met the requirements to qualify for federal employment and have pledged to serve our country. They also stated that this proposal would be consistent with the fact that citizenship status is not a requirement for determining a person's residence.

Three comments opposed the proposal to count deployed military at their usual residence in the United States from which they were deployed. One commenter suggested that all overseas military personnel should be counted in the same way, and that there is not a good reason to treat deployed personnel as a separate category from personnel who are stationed overseas. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should continue to count all overseas military personnel, including those who are deployed, in the state where they lived when they enlisted (i.e., their home of record) because military personnel are typically reassigned to a different permanent duty station every few years throughout their career, and their home of record is where they have the strongest ties. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should not implement the proposed change to how deployed military are counted because that change would weaken the argument for continuing to count prisoners at the correctional facility where they are incarcerated on Census Day. This commenter also recommended that the Census Bureau should make a stronger case for the distinction between these two large populations (i.e., deployed military personnel versus prisoners).

One comment was neutral regarding where to count overseas military personnel, in that they did not state where they thought deployed personnel should be counted. They simply stated that it appeared that not all of the locally stationed military personnel and their dependents were being counted, and asked for more information on whether this was true and/or how to ensure they were counted in the future.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for overseas military personnel (Sections C.4.a-b and C.13.f-g). This guidance makes a distinction between personnel who are deployed overseas and those who are stationed or assigned overseas. Deployments are typically short in duration, and the deployed personnel will be returning to their usual residence where they are stationed or assigned in the United States after their temporary deployment ends. Personnel stationed or assigned overseas generally remain overseas for longer periods of time and often do not return to the previous stateside location from which they left. Therefore, counting deployed personnel at their usual residence in the United States follows the standard interpretation of the residence criteria to count people at their usual residence if they are temporarily away for work purposes.

The Census Bureau will use administrative data from the Department of Defense to count deployed personnel at their usual residence in the United States for apportionment purposes and for inclusion in the resident population counts. The Census Bureau will count military and civilian employees of the U.S. government who are stationed or assigned outside the United States, and their dependents living with them, in their home state, for apportionment purposes only, using administrative data provided by the Department of Defense and the other federal agencies that employ them.

The Census Bureau has been communicating with stakeholders from various military communities and plans to work closely with military stakeholders to plan and carry out the enumeration of military personnel. As the planning process moves forward, there will be continued testing of our process for integrating DOD data on deployed personnel into the resident population counts.

Four comments were related to health care facilities. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in health care facilities. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau add residence guidance specifically regarding memory care centers as a separate category from nursing facilities because the nature of Alzheimer's disease and Dementia necessitates that these patients be enumerated through administrative records in order to ensure the accuracy of the data. One commenter suggested that people in psychiatric facilities should be counted at the residence where they were living before they entered the facility because they will most likely return to their prior community, which is where they would normally vote. This commenter also stated that these people should be counted in their prior communities in order to ensure that those communities receive the proper allocation of representatives and resources.

One commenter similarly suggested that people living in psychiatric hospitals on Census Day should be counted at the residence where they sleep most of the time, and only counted at the facility if they do not have a usual home elsewhere. They stated that the Census Bureau misunderstands the functioning of state and private psychiatric hospitals, which today provide primarily acute and short term treatment (e.g., less than two weeks, in most cases). They also stated that most patients in these facilities are likely to have a permanent residence elsewhere. The same commenter also stated that the Census Bureau's proposal for how to count people in nursing/skilled-nursing facilities does not best capture the experience of people with disabilities who are in the process of transitioning from group housing to more independent housing. Therefore, the commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should alter the proposed guidance in order to allow people in nursing/skilled-nursing facilities to be counted at a residence to which they are actively preparing to transition.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for health care facilities (Section C.11). Separate residence guidance was not added for memory care centers because these types of facilities would be considered subcategories of assisted living facilities and nursing facilities/skilled nursing facilities (Section C.11), and the guidance provided for these types of facilities is sufficient. Patients in mental (psychiatric) hospitals and psychiatric units in other hospitals (where the primary function is for long-term non-acute care) will be counted at the facility because the facilities or units within the facilities are primarily serving long-term non-acute patients who live and sleep at the facility most of time. Because people must be counted at their current usual residence, rather than a future usual residence, the residence guidance for patients in nursing/skilled-nursing facilities will not be revised to allow some people to be counted at a residence to which they are actively preparing to transition. Comments on health care facilities not addressed in this section were considered out of scope for this document.

Three comments were related to foreign citizens in the United States. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how foreign citizens are counted. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should add wording to clarify whether foreign “snowbirds” (i.e., foreign citizens who stay in a seasonal residence in the United States for multiple months) are considered to be “living” in the United States or only “visiting” the United States. In order to more accurately reflect the impact of foreign snowbirds on local jurisdictions in the United States, this commenter suggested defining those who are “living” in the United States as those who are “living or staying in the United States for an extended period of time exceeding ____months.” One commenter expressed concern about the impact of including undocumented people in the population counts for redistricting because these people cannot vote, and they stated that this practice encourages gerrymandering. This commenter suggested collecting data to identify the citizen voting age population (CVAP), so that the data could be used to prevent gerrymandering in gateway communities during the redistricting process.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for foreign citizens in the United States (Section C.3). Foreign citizens are considered to be “living” in the United States if, at the time of the census, they are living and sleeping most of the time at a residence in the United States. Section C.3 provides sufficient guidance for foreign citizens either living in or visiting the United States. Section C.5 provides additional guidance regarding “snowbirds.” Comments on foreign citizens in the United States not addressed in this section were considered out of scope for this document.

Three comments were related to juvenile facilities. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count juveniles in non-correctional residential treatment centers. One commenter stated that juveniles in all three types of juvenile facilities (i.e., correctional facilities, non-correctional group homes, and non-correctional residential treatment centers) should be counted at their usual residence. One commenter similarly stated that people in juvenile facilities should be counted at their usual residence outside the facility, but the context of the comment showed that this commenter was referring mostly to correctional facilities for juveniles (rather than non-correctional group homes and non-correctional residential treatment centers).

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for juvenile facilities (Section C.17). People in correctional facilities for juveniles and non-correctional group homes for juveniles will be counted at the facility because the majority of people in these types of facilities live and sleep there most of the time. People in non-correctional residential treatment centers for juveniles will be counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time (or at the facility if they do not have a usual home elsewhere) because these people typically stay at the facility temporarily and often have a usual home elsewhere to return to after treatment is completed.

Three comments were related to people in shelters and people experiencing homelessness. One expressed agreement with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in all of the subcategories of this residence situation except for the subcategory of people in domestic violence shelters. This commenter suggested that people in domestic violence shelters should be allowed to be counted at their last residence address prior to the shelter, due to the temporary nature of their stay and the confidentiality of that shelter's location. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau add residence guidance specifically regarding “temporarily moved persons due to emergencies” (e.g., displaced from their home by a hurricane or earthquake). This commenter stated that these people should be counted “in their normal prior residential locations” (if they state the intention to return to that prior location after their home is repaired/rebuilt) so that accurate decisions can be made regarding funding for rebuilding and infrastructure restoration in those locations. One commenter requested that the Census Bureau publish national and/or state level population counts for the subcategory of people in emergency and transitional shelters with sleeping facilities for people experiencing homelessness. This commenter stated that these data are important to both housing advocates trying to assess the housing needs of people with disabilities, and to legal advocates working to enforce the community integration mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for people in shelters and people experiencing homelessness (Section C.21).

The proposed residence guidance already allows people who are temporarily displaced by natural disasters to be counted at their usual residence to which they intend to return. People in temporary group living quarters established for victims of natural disasters will be counted where they live and sleep most of the time (or at the facility if they do not report a usual home elsewhere). In addition, people who are temporarily displaced or experiencing homelessness, and are staying in a residence for a short or indefinite period of time, will be counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they will be counted where they are staying on Census Day.

Two comments were related to boarding school students, and two comments were related to college students. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count boarding school students and college students. One commenter suggested that they agree with counting college students at their college residence because that would better ensure that all college students are counted in the census. One commenter suggested that boarding school students should be counted at the school because that is where they live and sleep most of the time, and they participate in (and consume the resources of) the community where the school is located. This commenter also stated that counting boarding school students at their parental home is inconsistent with the fact that college students are counted at their college residence, considering that college students are often just as dependent on their parents as boarding school students.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for college students (Section C.10.a-e) and boarding school students (Section C.9.a). The Census Bureau has historically counted boarding school students at their parental home, and will continue doing so because of the students' age and dependency on their parents, and the likelihood that they will return to their parents' residence when they are not attending their boarding school (e.g., weekends, summer/winter breaks, and when they stop attending the school).

Two comments were related to adult group homes and residential treatment centers. One commenter suggested that all people in adult group homes and adult residential treatment centers should be counted at their usual residence other than the facility, because counting them at the facility is not consistent with their state's definition of residence. One commenter stated that the Census Bureau's proposal for how to count people in adult group homes does not best capture the experience of people with disabilities who are in the process of transitioning from group housing to more independent housing. Therefore, the commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should alter the proposed guidance in order to allow people in adult group homes to be counted at a residence to which they are actively preparing to transition. The same commenter also requested that the Census Bureau publish national and/or state level population counts for the subcategories of people in adult group homes and adult residential treatment centers. This commenter stated that these data are important to both housing advocates trying to assess the housing needs of people with disabilities, and to legal advocates working to enforce the community integration mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for people in non-correctional adult group homes and residential treatment centers (Section C.16). People in non-correctional group homes for adults will be counted at the facility because the majority of people in these types of facilities live and sleep there most of the time. People in non-correctional residential treatment centers for adults will be counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time (or at the facility if they do not have a usual home elsewhere) because these people typically stay at the facility temporarily and often have a usual home elsewhere to return to after treatment is completed.

The residence guidance for people in adult group homes will not be revised to allow some people to be counted at a residence to which they are actively preparing to transition because people must be counted at their current usual residence, rather than a future usual residence. Comments on non-correctional adult group homes and residential treatment centers not addressed in this section were considered out of scope for this document.

Two comments were related to transitory locations. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in transitory locations. One commenter stated that the proposed residence guidance for transitory locations is acceptable because it is consistent with the concept of usual residence. However, they were concerned that the procedures used in the 2010 Census may have caused certain types of people to not be counted in the census because these people typically move seasonally from one transitory location (e.g., RV park) to another throughout the year, but the location where they are staying on Census Day may not be the location where they spend most of the year. This commenter stated that, during the 2010 Census, if the transitory location where a person was staying on Census Day was not where they stayed most of the time, then they were not enumerated at that location because the assumption was that they would be enumerated at their usual residence. Therefore, the commenter was concerned that people who stayed in one RV park for a few months around Census Day were not counted at that RV park if they indicated that they usually lived elsewhere (e.g., another RV park), and they would also not have been counted at that other RV park when they are there later that year (after the census enumeration period ends). The commenter suggested that we add procedures to account for people who spend most of their time in a combination of multiple transitory locations.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for people in transitory locations (Section C.18). Sufficient guidance for people in transitory locations, including those living in recreational vehicles, is provided in Section C.18. Comments on transitory locations not addressed in this section were considered out of scope for this document.

Two comments were related to visitors on Census Day. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count visitors on Census Day. One commenter asked whether the Census Bureau would count all vacationers in a specific state as residents of that state.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for visitors on Census Day (Section C.2). People who are temporarily visiting a location on Census Day will be counted where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual residence to return to, they will be counted where they are staying on Census Day.

Two comments were related to people who live or stay in more than one place. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people who live or stay in more than one place. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau add more clarification to the residence guidance regarding where “snowbirds” (i.e., seasonal residents) are counted.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for people who live or stay in more than one place (Section C.5). People who travel seasonally between residences (e.g., snowbirds) will be counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they will be counted where they are staying on Census Day.

Two comments were related to merchant marine personnel, and both commenters simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count merchant marine personnel.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for merchant marine personnel (Section C.14).

Two comments were related to religious group quarters. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in religious group quarters. One commenter expressed agreement with the proposal because most religious group quarters are long-term residences that align with the concept of usual residence.

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed residence situation guidance for religious group quarters (Section C.20).

There was one letter that included a comment on every residence situation, and each of those topic-specific comments was included as appropriate among the comments regarding the corresponding residence situations discussed above. However, for each of the other residence situations not already discussed above, the commenter stated that they agreed with how the Census Bureau proposed to count people in the following residence situations.

• People away from their usual residence on Census Day (e.g., on vacation or business trip) (Section C.1).

• People living outside the United States (Section C.4).

• People moving into or out of a residence around Census Day (Section C.6).

• People who are born or who die around Census Day (Section C.7).

• Relatives and nonrelatives (Section C.8).

• Residential schools for people with disabilities (Section C.9.b-c).

• Housing for older adults (Section C.12).

• Stateside military personnel (Section C.13.a-e).

• Workers' residential facilities (Section C.19).

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the proposed guidance for the residence situations listed in this section (B.14).

There was one comment on the concept of usual residence, in which the commenter expressed agreement with the definition of “usual residence” as being the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time.

There were seven comments on the general residence criteria. One commenter simply supported the entire residence criteria and residence situations documentation. Two commenters stated that they specifically agree with the three main principles of the residence criteria. One commenter disagreed with “this method of tallying the U.S. population,” but did not refer to any specific residence situation. One commenter stated that every resident should be counted in the census. One commenter stated that every citizen should be counted in the census. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau count people who are away from their home at the time of the census using a code to indicate the reason why they are away (e.g., travel, work, incarceration, etc.).

Census Bureau Response: For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau will retain the three main principles of the residence criteria (see introduction portion of section C). The goal of the decennial census is to count all people who are living in the United States on Census Day at their usual residence. Comments on the concept of usual residence or general residence criteria not addressed in this section were considered out of scope for this document.

There were 18 comments that did not directly address the residence criteria or any particular residence situation.

Census Bureau Response: Comments that did not directly address the residence criteria or any particular residence situation are out of scope for this document.

The Residence Criteria are used to determine where people are counted during the 2020 Census. The Criteria say:

• Count people at their usual residence, which is the place where they live and sleep most of the time.

• People in certain types of group facilities on Census Day are counted at the group facility.

• People who do not have a usual residence, or who cannot determine a usual residence, are counted where they are on Census Day.

The following sections describe how the Residence Criteria apply to certain living situations for which people commonly request clarification.

People away from their usual residence on Census Day, such as on a vacation or a business trip, visiting, traveling outside the United States, or working elsewhere without a usual residence there (for example, as a truck driver or traveling salesperson)—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

Visitors on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual residence to return to, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(a) Citizens of foreign countries living in the United States—Counted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

(b) Citizens of foreign countries living in the United States who are members of the diplomatic community—Counted at the embassy, consulate, United Nations' facility, or other residences where diplomats live.

(c) Citizens of foreign countries visiting the United States, such as on a vacation or business trip—Not counted in the census.

(a) People deployed outside the United States 9 on Census Day (while stationed or assigned in the United States) who are military or civilian employees of the U.S. government—Counted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time, using administrative data provided by federal agencies.10

(b) People stationed or assigned outside the United States on Census Day who are military or civilian employees of the U.S. government, as well as their dependents living with them outside the United States—Counted as part of the U.S. federally affiliated overseas population, using administrative data provided by federal agencies.

(c) People living outside the United States on Census Day who are not military or civilian employees of the U.S. government and are not dependents living with military or civilian employees of the U.S. government—Not counted in the stateside census.

(a) People living away most of the time while working, such as people who live at a residence close to where they work and return regularly to another residence—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(b) People who live or stay at two or more residences (during the week, month, or year), such as people who travel seasonally between residences (for example, snowbirds)—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(c) Children in shared custody or other arrangements who live at more than one residence—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(a) People who move into a new residence on or before Census Day—Counted at the new residence where they are living on Census Day.

(b) People who move out of a residence on Census Day and do not move into a new residence until after Census Day—Counted at the old residence where they were living on Census Day.

(c) People who move out of a residence before Census Day and do not move into a new residence until after Census Day—Counted at the residence where they are staying on Census Day.

(a) Babies born on or before Census Day—Counted at the residence where they will live and sleep most of the time, even if they are still in a hospital on Census Day.

(b) Babies born after Census Day—Not counted in the census.

(c) People who die before Census Day—Not counted in the census.

(d) People who die on or after Census Day—Counted at the residence where they were living and sleeping most of the time as of Census Day.

(a) Babies and children of all ages, including biological, step, and adopted children, as well as grandchildren—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day. (Only count babies born on or before Census Day.)

(b) Foster children—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(c) Spouses and close relatives, such as parents or siblings—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(d) Extended relatives, such as grandparents, nieces/nephews, aunts/uncles, cousins, or in-laws—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(e) Unmarried partners—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(f) Housemates or roommates—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(g) Roomers or boarders—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(h) Live-in employees, such as caregivers or domestic workers—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(i) Other nonrelatives, such as friends—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

(a) Boarding school students living away from their parents' or guardians' home while attending boarding school below the college level, including Bureau of Indian Affairs boarding schools—Counted at their parents' or guardians' home.

(b) Students in residential schools for people with disabilities on Census Day—Counted at the school.

(c) Staff members living at boarding schools or residential schools for people with disabilities on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the school.

(a) College students living at their parents' or guardians' home while attending college in the United States—Counted at their parents' or guardians' home.

(b) College students living away from their parents' or guardians' home while attending college in the United States (living either on-campus or off-campus)—Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they are living in college/university student housing (such as dormitories or residence halls) on Census Day, they are counted at the college/university student housing.

(c) College students living away from their parents' or guardians' home while attending college in the United States (living either on-campus or off-campus) but staying at their parents' or guardians' home while on break or vacation—Counted at the on-campus or off-campus residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they are living in college/university student housing (such as dormitories or residence halls) on Census Day, they are counted at the college/university student housing.

(d) College students who are U.S. citizens living outside the United States while attending college outside the United States—Not counted in the stateside census.

(e) College students who are foreign citizens living in the United States while attending college in the United States (living either on-campus or off-campus)—Counted at the on-campus or off-campus U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they are living in college/university student housing (such as dormitories or residence halls) on Census Day, they are counted at the college/university student housing.

(f) Staff members living in college/university student housing (such as dormitories or residence halls) on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the college/university student housing.

(a) People in general or Veterans Affairs hospitals (except psychiatric units) on Census Day, including newborn babies still in the hospital on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. Newborn babies are counted at the residence where they will live and sleep most of the time. If patients or staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the hospital.

(b) People in mental (psychiatric) hospitals and psychiatric units in other hospitals (where the primary function is for long-term non-acute care) on Census Day—Patients are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(c) People in assisted living facilities 11 where care is provided for individuals who need help with the activities of daily living but do not need the skilled medical care that is provided in a nursing home—Residents and staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

(d) People in nursing facilities/skilled-nursing facilities (which provide long-term non-acute care) on Census Day—Patients are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(e) People staying at in-patient hospice facilities on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If patients or staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

People in housing intended for older adults, such as active adult communities, independent living, senior apartments, or retirement communities—Residents and staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

(a) U.S. military personnel assigned to military barracks/dormitories in the United States on Census Day—Counted at the military barracks/dormitories.

(b) U.S. military personnel (and dependents living with them) living in the United States (living either on base or off base) who are not assigned to barracks/dormitories on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

(c) U.S. military personnel assigned to U.S. military vessels with a U.S. homeport on Census Day—Counted at the onshore U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they have no onshore U.S. residence, they are counted at their vessel's homeport.

(d) People who are active duty patients assigned to a military treatment facility in the United States on Census Day—Patients are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(e) People in military disciplinary barracks and jails in the United States on Census Day—Prisoners are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(f) U.S. military personnel who are deployed outside the United States (while stationed in the United States) and are living on or off a military installation outside the United States on Census Day—Counted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time, using administrative data provided by the Department of Defense.

(g) U.S. military personnel who are stationed outside the United States and are living on or off a military installation outside the United States on Census Day, as well as their dependents living with them outside the United States—Counted as part of the U.S. federally affiliated overseas population, using administrative data provided by the Department of Defense.

(h) U.S. military personnel assigned to U.S. military vessels with a homeport outside the United States on Census Day—Counted as part of the U.S. federally affiliated overseas population, using administrative data provided by the Department of Defense.

(a) Crews of U.S. flag maritime/merchant vessels docked in a U.S. port, sailing from one U.S. port to another U.S. port, sailing from a U.S. port to a foreign port, or sailing from a foreign port to a U.S. port on Census Day—Counted at the onshore U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they have no onshore U.S. residence, they are counted at their vessel. If the vessel is docked in a U.S. port, sailing from a U.S. port to a foreign port, or sailing from a foreign port to a U.S. port, crewmembers with no onshore U.S. residence are counted at the U.S. port. If the vessel is sailing from one U.S. port to another U.S. port, crewmembers with no onshore U.S. residence are counted at the port of departure.

(b) Crews of U.S. flag maritime/merchant vessels engaged in U.S. inland waterway transportation on Census Day—Counted at the onshore U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time.

(c) Crews of U.S. flag maritime/merchant vessels docked in a foreign port or sailing from one foreign port to another foreign port on Census Day—Not counted in the stateside census.

(a) People in federal and state prisons on Census Day—Prisoners are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(b) People in local jails and other municipal confinement facilities on Census Day—Prisoners are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(c) People in federal detention centers on Census Day, such as Metropolitan Correctional Centers, Metropolitan Detention Centers, Bureau of Indian Affairs Detention Centers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Service Processing Centers, and ICE contract detention facilities—Prisoners are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(d) People in correctional residential facilities on Census Day, such as halfway houses, restitution centers, and prerelease, work release, and study centers—Residents are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(a) People in group homes intended for adults (non-correctional) on Census Day—Residents are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(b) People in residential treatment centers for adults (non-correctional) on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If residents or staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(a) People in correctional facilities intended for juveniles on Census Day—Juvenile residents are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(b) People in group homes for juveniles (non-correctional) on Census Day—Juvenile residents are counted at the facility. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(c) People in residential treatment centers for juveniles (non-correctional) on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If juvenile residents or staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

People at transitory locations such as recreational vehicle (RV) parks, campgrounds, hotels and motels, hostels, marinas, racetracks, circuses, or carnivals—Anyone, including staff members, staying at the transitory location is counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual home elsewhere, or they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted at the transitory location.

People in workers' group living quarters and Job Corps Centers on Census Day—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If residents or staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

People in religious group quarters, such as convents and monasteries, on Census Day—Counted at the facility.

(a) People in domestic violence shelters on Census Day—People staying at the shelter (who are not staff) are counted at the shelter. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the shelter.

(b) People who, on Census Day, are in temporary group living quarters established for victims of natural disasters—Anyone, including staff members, staying at the facility is counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the facility.

(c) People who, on Census Day, are in emergency and transitional shelters with sleeping facilities for people experiencing homelessness—People staying at the shelter (who are not staff) are counted at the shelter. Staff members are counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If staff members do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the shelter.

(d) People who, on Census Day, are at soup kitchens and regularly scheduled mobile food vans that provide food to people experiencing homelessness—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they do not have a usual home elsewhere, they are counted at the soup kitchen or mobile food van location where they are on Census Day.

(e) People who, on Census Day, are at targeted non-sheltered outdoor locations where people experiencing homelessness stay without paying—Counted at the outdoor location where they are on Census Day.

(f) People who, on Census Day, are temporarily displaced or experiencing homelessness and are staying in a residence for a short or indefinite period of time—Counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they are counted where they are staying on Census Day.

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS THOMAS HUDNER (DDG 116) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f) (ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Rule 23(a), the requirement to display a forward and aft masthead light underway, and Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

I. Background

In 2005, EPA promulgated CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) to address transported emissions that significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and interfered with maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). CAIR required 28 states, including West Virginia, to revise their SIPs to reduce emissions of NOX and SO2, precursors to the formation of ambient ozone and PM2.5. Under CAIR, EPA provided model state rules for separate cap and trade programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2. The annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs were designed to address transported PM2.5 pollution, while the ozone season NOX trading program was designed to address transported ozone pollution. EPA also promulgated CAIR federal implementation plans (FIPs) with CAIR federal trading programs that would address each state's CAIR requirements in the event that a CAIR SIP for the state was not submitted or approved (71 FR 25328, April 28, 2006). Generally, both the model state rules and the federal trading program rules applied only to electric generating units (EGUs), but in the case of the model state rule and federal trading program for ozone season NOX emissions, each state had the option to submit a CAIR SIP revision that expanded applicability to include certain non-EGUs that formerly participated in the NOX Budget Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call.1 West Virginia submitted, and EPA approved, a CAIR SIP revision based on the model state rules establishing CAIR state trading programs for annual SO2, annual NOX, and ozone season NOX emissions, with certain non-EGUs included in the state's CAIR ozone season NOX trading program. See 74 FR 38536 (August 4, 2009).

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (Dec. 23, 2008). The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the Court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the NOX annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.

On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR in order to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR required EGUs in affected states, including West Virginia, to participate in federal trading programs to reduce annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone season NOX emissions. The rule also contained provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of the CSAPR compliance requirements. CSAPR was to become effective January 1, 2012; however, the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by a number of court actions. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its implementation and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR on an interim basis. On August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects but remanded certain state emissions budgets, including the Phase 2 ozone season NOX budget for West Virginia. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to implement CAIR. Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C. Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from petitioners.

Additionally, EPA's motion requested delay, by three years, of all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as January 1, 2015 and delayed the implementation of CSAPR Phase I to 2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule, EPA stopped administering the CAIR state and federal trading programs with respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.2

In October 2016, EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504, Oct. 26, 2016). In the CSAPR Update, EPA responded to the remand of West Virginia's Phase 2 ozone season NOX budget by withdrawing the requirement for West Virginia EGUs to participate, after 2016, in the original CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program, which had addressed the state's transport obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and required the state's EGUs to participate starting in 2017 in a new CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program to address (in part) the state's transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

As noted above, starting in January 2015, the CSAPR federal trading programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX and annual SO2 were applicable in West Virginia. Thus, since January 1, 2015, EPA has not administered the CAIR state trading programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, or annual SO2 emissions established by the West Virginia regulations.

On July 13, 2016, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted three SIP revisions requesting EPA to remove from its SIP three regulations that implemented the CAIR state trading programs: Regulation 45CSR39—Control of Annual Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, Regulation 45CSR40—Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and Regulation 45CSR41—Control of Annual Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. On September 25, 2017 (41 FR 44525), EPA published a direct final rulemaking notice (DFRN) for the State of West Virginia. In the DFRN, EPA approved the West Virginia SIP submittals requesting removal of Regulation 45CSR39 and Regulation 45CSR41 from the West Virginia SIP, and explained that it would take separate action on Regulation 45CSR40 at a future date. On the same date (41 FR 44544), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the removal action. EPA published the DFRN without prior proposal because the Agency viewed the submittals as noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comments. EPA explained that if adverse comments were received during the comment period, the DFRN would be withdrawn and all public comments received would be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the September 25, 2017 proposed rule. EPA received an adverse comment, and on December 12, 2017 (82 FR 58341), withdrew the DFRN.

WVDEP submitted two SIP revisions on July 13, 2016 that requested the removal from the West Virginia SIP of the State's regulations (45CSR39 and 45CSR41) which implemented respectively West Virginia's state CAIR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs. As noted previously, the CAIR annual NOX and SO2 reduction programs addressed interstate transport of emissions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA for replacement, and in response EPA promulgated CSAPR which, among other things, fully addresses West Virginia's interstate transport obligations with regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR at 48210. Once the transport obligations formerly addressed through the CAIR trading programs began to be addressed through implementation of the CSAPR trading programs in January 2015, EPA stopped administering the CAIR trading programs, including West Virginia's state CAIR annual NOX and SO2 programs created by 45CSR39 and 45CSR41. Consequently, these two state rules no longer play any role in remedying the transport obligation that the state adopted them to address, which is now being met through other rules. Further, these two state rules do not serve any other purpose (such as helping to address requirements for certain non-EGUs under the NOX SIP Call). Therefore, EPA determines it is appropriate for these two state regulations implementing CAIR to be removed in their entirety from the West Virginia SIP.

One commenter submitted two comments on the proposed approval of WVDEP's July 13, 2016 submittals requesting removal of Regulations 45CSR39 and 45CSR41 from the West Virginia SIP.

Comment 1: The commenter stated that EPA can only remove the CAIR NOX annual and SO2 annual trading programs at the same time as the NOX ozone season program, and EPA cannot remove two of the three programs without adequately explaining why these programs can be removed separately.

EPA Response to Comment 1: West Virginia's regulations that implemented the CAIR trading programs were established in three separate regulations: Regulation 45CSR39—Control of Annual Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, Regulation 45CSR40—Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and Regulation 45CSR41—Control of Annual Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. These regulations were designed to allow West Virginia to participate in the regional trading programs administered by EPA to meet the requirements of CAIR. The regional trading programs under CAIR were separate trading programs for annual NOX, ozone season NOX, and annual SO2, and affected states had the flexibility to participate in one or more of the trading programs. Adoption of one of the trading programs in a SIP was not dependent on adoption of any of the other trading programs into the state's SIP, and each is therefore severable from one another. West Virginia submitted three stand-alone SIP submittals on July 13, 2016, each submittal requesting removal of one of the three CAIR regulations from the West Virginia SIP. As these were three separate submittals to remove separate state regulations for separate regional trading programs, EPA can take independent action on each of the submittals in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. The commenter has not cited any authority that precludes EPA from taking such independent actions, or any harm that would arise from EPA's approval of West Virginia's of the CAIR NOX annual and SO2 annual trading programs separate from the NOX ozone season trading program.

Comment 2: The commenter also stated that EPA cannot simply say that the removals are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA, but needs to explain how the removals meet the section 110(l) requirements.

EPA Response to Comment 2: Regarding the commenter's concerns with respect to the requirements of CAA section 110(l), as noted previously in this rulemaking and in the DFRN, EPA is no longer administering the CAIR trading programs for annual NOX and SO2, including West Virginia's State CAIR programs created by 40CSR39 and 40CSR41. Because the State CAIR trading programs created by these rules are no longer being implemented, and because the rules serve no other purpose, removal of the rules from the SIP does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other requirement of the CAA.

EPA is approving the two July 13, 2016 West Virginia SIP revision submissions which seek removal from the West Virginia SIP of Regulation 45CSR39 that implemented the CAIR annual NOX trading program and Regulation 45CSR41 that implemented the CAIR annual SO2 trading program. Removal of these two regulations from the West Virginia SIP is in accordance with section 110 of the CAA.

Under the 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 removing West Virginia regulations 45CSR39 and 45CSR41 from the West Virginia SIP 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 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 April 9, 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 removing West Virginia regulations 45CSR39 and 45CSR41 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On January 25, 2018, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that addresses the question of when a major source subject to a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard under CAA section 112 may be reclassified as an area source, and thereby avoid being subject thereafter to major source MACT and other requirements applicable to major sources under CAA section 112. As is explained in the memorandum, the plain language of the definitions of “major source” in CAA section 112(a)(1) and of “area source” in CAA section 112(a)(2) compels the conclusion that a major source becomes an area source at such time that the source takes an enforceable limit on its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air pollutants (HAP) below the major source thresholds (i.e., 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP). In such circumstances, a source that was previously classified as major, and which so limits its PTE, will no longer be subject either to the major source MACT or other major source requirements that were applicable to it as a major source under CAA section 112.

A prior EPA guidance memorandum had taken a different position. See Potential to Emit for MACT Standards—Guidance on Timing Issues.” John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (May 16, 1995) (the “May 1995 Seitz Memorandum”). The May 1995 Seitz Memorandum set forth a policy, commonly known as “once in, always in” (the “OIAI policy”), under which “facilities may switch to area source status at any time until the `first compliance date' of the standard,” with “first compliance date” being defined to mean the “first date a source must comply with an emission limitation or other substantive regulatory requirement.” May 1995 Seitz Memorandum at 5. Thereafter, under the OIAI policy, “facilities that are major sources for HAP on the `first compliance date' are required to comply permanently with the MACT standard.” Id. at 9.

The guidance signed on January 25, 2018, supersedes that which was contained in the May 1995 Seitz Memorandum.

The EPA anticipates that it will soon publish a Federal Register document to take comment on adding regulatory text that will reflect EPA's plain language reading of the statute as discussed in this memorandum.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (Order), FCC 18-3, adopted and released on January 24, 2018. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-3A1.docx. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

1. In this Order, we make non-substantive, editorial revisions to parts 27, 54, 73, 74, and 76 of the Commission's rules as part of our continuing efforts to modernize our media regulations and eliminate unnecessary rules.1 These revisions delete rule provisions that are without current legal effect and are therefore obsolete.2

2. We delete rules that impose consumer notification and station interference protection obligations relating to the analog-to-digital transition for full power television broadcast stations (DTV transition), which concluded on June 12, 2009. In particular, we delete §§ 27.20, 54.418, 73.616(a) and the accompanying Note, 73.674, 73.3526(e)(11)(iv), 73.3527(e)(13) and 76.1630 of the Commission's rules, which are without current legal effect and obsolete. We also delete the Note to § 73.625(a)(1), which sets forth outdated DTV principal community coverage minimum field strength requirements applicable to certain television broadcast licensees.

3. In addition, we delete rules that were adopted in conjunction with full power analog television broadcasting, which is no longer permitted. Specifically, we delete §§ 73.607, 73.610, 73.611, 73.671(d), 73.6011, 73.6016, and 74.705 of the Commission's rules, which are without current legal effect and obsolete. In addition, we amend § 73.606 of our rules by deleting the Table of Allotments applicable to full power analog television broadcast service and cross-referencing § 73.622(i), which sets forth the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments and is the “successor regulation” to § 73.606.3

4. The rule revisions adopted in this Order are non-substantive, editorial revisions. Because these revisions merely eliminate provisions that are no longer effective and thus obsolete, we find good cause to conclude that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and would not serve any useful purpose. For the same reason, and to expedite the elimination of such obsolete references for the benefit of the public, we find good cause to make these rule revisions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

5. Because these rule changes do not require notice and comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

6. The Commission will send a copy of the Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered that, effective upon publication in the Federal Register, parts 27, 54, 73, 74, and 76 of the Commission's rules are amended pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and in sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 553(d)(3).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 27, 54, 73, 74, and 76 as follows:

Availability

A copy of the 96 CEG/CEIEA's application, NMFS proposed rule (82 FR 61372; December 27, 2017), the USAF's Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range Environmental Assessment (Navy 2015) and NMFS Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) may be obtained by visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm. Documents cited in this rule may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address (see ADDRESSES).

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing this rule and any subsequent LOA pursuant to those regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the Secretary sets forth permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Section 319, Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review the proposed action (i.e., the issuance of regulations and an LOA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

Accordingly, NMFS has adopted the USAF's Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range Environmental Assessment and after an independent evaluation of the document found that it included adequate information analyzing the effects on the human environment of issuing incidental take authorizations. In February 2018, NMFS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The final EA and FONSI are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm.

On September 16, 2015, NMFS received a request for regulations from Eglin AFB for the taking of marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (NM) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five years. Eglin AFB worked with NMFS to revise the model used to calculate take estimates and submitted a revised application on April 15, 2017. The application was considered adequate and complete on October 30, 2017.

On August 24, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application in the Federal Register (82 FR 40141), requesting comments and information for thirty days related to Eglin AFB's request. We did not receive any comments from the public. We subsequently published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on December 27, 2017 (82 FR 61372), again requesting public comments.

NMFS previously issued incidental take authorizations for activities taking place in the EGTTR. On April 23, 2012, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued an LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) training operations at Eglin AFB. This rule expired on April 24, 2017 (77 FR 16718; March 22, 2012). On March 5, 2014, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued an LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Special Operations Command (AFSOC) precision strike weapons (PSW) and air-to-surface (AS) gunnery activities in the EGTTR, which is valid through March 4, 2019 (79 FR 13568; March 11, 2014). In addition to these rules and LOAs, NMFS has issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) for take of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Maritime Strike Operations (78 FR 52135; August 22, 2013; valid August 19, 2013 through August 18, 2014) and Maritime Weapons Systems Evaluations Program (WSEP) annually in 2015 (80 FR 17394), 2016 (81 FR 7307), and 2017 (82 FR 10747) which currently expires on February 3, 2018. Eglin AFB complied with all conditions of the LOAs and IHAs issued, including submission of final reports. Information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section. Based on these reports, NMFS has determined that impacts to marine mammals were not beyond those anticipated. Eglin AFB's current LOA would supersede the existing PSW and AS gunnery rule that is in effect until March 4, 2019, and would include all of Eglin AFB's testing and training activities, including WSEP activities, into one new rule with the exception of NEODS training activities. Eglin AFB has never conducted any NEODS training activities and is not including these activities as part of the new rulemaking.

Following is a summary of some of the major provisions applicable to Eglin AFB's Testing and training missions in the EGTTR. We have determined that Eglin AFB's adherence to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included in this rule would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. The provisions, which are generally designed to minimize the duration and total volume of explosive detonations, include:

• Monitoring will be conducted by personnel who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service;

• For each live mission, at a minimum, pre- and post-mission monitoring will be required. Monitoring will be conducted from a given platform depending on the specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability and (2) verify that the zone of influence (ZOI) is free of visually detectable marine mammals and potential marine mammal indicators. Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals;

• Mission delay will be implemented during live ordnance mission activities if protected species, large schools of fish, or large flocks of birds are observed feeding at the surface within the ZOI. Mission activities may not resume until the animals are observed moving away from the ZOI or 30 minutes have passed;

• Mission delay will be implemented if daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life. EGTTR missions may not resume until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring;

• If unauthorized takes of marine mammals (i.e., serious injury or mortality) occur, ceasing operations and reporting to NMFS immediately and submitting a report to NMFS within 24 hours;

• Aerial-based monitoring will be employed which provides an excellent viewing platform for detection of marine mammals at or near the surface;

• Video-based monitoring via live high-definition video feed will be employed which facilitates data collection for the mission but can also allow remote viewing of the area for determination of environmental conditions and the presence of marine species up to the release time of live munitions;

• Vessel-based monitoring will be employed; and

• Ramp-up procedures will be implemented during gunnery operations.

The proposed rule (82 FR 61372; December 27, 2017) and the 96 CEG/CEIEA's EA include a complete description of the USAF's specified training activities for which NMFS is authorizing incidental take of marine mammals in this final rule. Surface and sub-surface detonations are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment. The aforementioned documents can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/military.htm). The description of location, delivery aircraft, and weapon types remain unchanged, and we incorporate this description by reference, and provide a summary below.

Eglin AFB will conduct military aircraft missions within the EGTTR that involve the employment of multiple types of live (explosive) and inert (non-explosive) munitions against various surface targets. Munitions may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft including, but not limited to, fighter jets, bombers, and gunships. Munitions consist of bombs, missiles, rockets, and gunnery rounds. The targets may vary, but primarily consist of stationary, towed, or remotely controlled boats, inflatable targets, or marking flares. Detonations may occur in the air, at the water surface, or approximately 10 feet (ft) below the surface. Absent mitigation, mission activities planned in the EGTTR have the potential to expose cetaceans to sound or pressure levels currently associated with mortality, Level A harassment, and Level B harassment, as defined by the MMPA.

Testing and training missions would be conducted during any time of the year. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR. Aside from gunnery operations, mission activities that release live ordnance resulting in surface or subsurface detonations would be conducted at a pre-determined location approximately 17 miles offshore of Santa Rosa Island, in a water depth of about 35 meters (m) (115 ft).

All activities will take place within the EGTTR, which is defined as the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point 3 NM from shore. The EGTTR is subdivided into blocks consisting of Warning Areas W-155, W-151, W-470, W-168, and W-174, as well as Eglin Water Test Areas 1 through 6 (See Figure 1-2 in Application). Most of the blocks are further sub-divided into smaller airspace units for scheduling purposes (for example, W-151A, B, C, and D). However, most of the activities will occur in W-151, and the great majority will occur specifically in sub-area W-151A due to its proximity to shore (Figure 1-3 in Application). Descriptive information for all of W-151 and for W-151A specifically is provided below.

Eglin AFB plans to conduct the following actions in the EGTTR: (1) 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) Maritime Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP) test missions that involve the use of multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) detonated above, at, or slightly below the water surface; (2) Advanced Systems Employment Project actions that involve deployment of a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions (all inert ordnances in relation to EGTTR); (3) Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) training, including air-to-surface gunnery missions involving firing live gunnery rounds at targets on the water surface in EGTTR, small diameter bomb (SDB) and Griffin/Hellfire missile training involving the use of live missiles and SDBs in the EGTTR against small towed boats, and CV-22 tiltrotor aircraft training involving the firing of 0.50 caliber (cal.)/7.62 mm ammunition at flares floating on the EGTTR water surface; (4) 413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) Precision Strike Program (PSP) activities involving firing munitions at flare targets on the EGTTR water surface and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) testing involving captive-carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests; (5) 780th Test Squadron (TS) activities involving precision strike weapon (PSW) test missions (launch of munitions against targets in the EGTTR) and Longbow Littoral Testing (data collection on tracking and impact ability of the Longbow missile on small boats); (6) 96th Test Wing Inert Missions (developmental testing and evaluation for wide variety of air-delivered weapons and other systems using inert bombs); and (7) 96 Operations Group (OG) missions, which involve the support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups within EGTTR.

During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. The actions include air-to-ground missiles (AGM); air intercept missiles (AIM); bomb dummy units (BDU); guided bomb units (GBU); projectile gun units (PGU); cluster bomb units (CBU); wind-corrected munitions dispensers (WCMD); small-diameter bombs (SDB) and laser small diameter bombs (LSDB); high explosive incendiary units (HEI); joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and laser joint direct attack munitions (LJDAM); research department explosives (RDX); joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles (JASSM); high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapons (inert); high-speed maneuverable surface targets; and gunnery rounds. Net explosive weight (NEW) of the live munitions ranges from 0.1 to 945 pounds (lb).

The EGTTR testing and training missions are classified as military readiness activities and involve the firing or dropping of air-to-surface weapons. Depending on the requirements of a given mission, munitions may be inert (contain no or very little explosive charges) or live (contain explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, at, or slightly below the water surface. In most cases, missions consisting of live bombs, missiles, and rockets that detonate at or below the water surface will occur at a site in W-151A that has been designated specifically for these types of activities. Typically, test data collection is conducted from an instrumentation barge known as the Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel (GRATV) anchored on-site, which provides a platform for cameras and weapon-tracking equipment. Therefore, the mission area is referred to as the GRATV target location. Alternative site locations may be selected, if necessary, within a 5-mile radius around the GRATV point. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR but are typically conducted in W-151.

For this LOA, descriptions of mission activities that involve in-water detonations include a section called Mission-Day Categorization. This subsection describes the mission-day scenario used for acoustic modeling and is based on the estimated number of weapons released per day. This approach is meant to satisfy NMFS' requests to analyze and assess acoustic impacts associated with accumulated energy from multiple detonations occurring over a 24-hour timeframe. Eglin AFB used all available information to develop each mission-day scenario, including historical release records; however, these scenarios may not represent exact weapon releases because military needs and requirements are in a constant state of flux. The mission-day categorizations provide high-, medium-, and low-intensity mission-day scenarios for some groups and an average scenario for other groups. Mission-day scenarios vary for each user group and are described in the following sections.

Note that additional testing and training activities are planned for the EGTTR that will not result in any acoustic impacts to marine mammals and, therefore, not require any acoustic analyses. Examples include the firing of 0.50 caliber and 7.62 gunnery rounds that do not contain explosives, use of airburst-only detonations, and operations involving simulated weapons delivery. Those activities are described in detail in the Application but are not discussed here.

The 86 FWS would continue to use multiple types of live and inert munitions in the EGTTR against small boat targets for the Maritime WSEP Operational Testing Program. The purpose of the testing is to continue the development of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) for USAF strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface vessels in order to better protect vessels or other assets from small boat threats.

Proposed aircraft and munitions associated with Maritime WSEP activities are shown in Table 1. Because the focus of the tests would be weapon/target interaction, no particular aircraft would be specified for a given test as long as it met the delivery requirements.

Live munitions would be set to detonate either in the air, instantaneously upon contact with a target boat, or after a slight delay (up to 10 millisecond) after impact, which would correspond to a water depth of about 5 to 10 ft. The annual number, height or depth of detonation, explosive material, and net explosive weight (NEW) of each live munition associated with Maritime WSEP is provided in Table 2. The quantity of live munitions tested is considered necessary to provide the intended level of tactics and weapons evaluation, including a number of replicate tests sufficient for an acceptable confidence level regarding munitions capabilities.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Atlantic king mackerel below apply as either round or gutted weight.

On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the Federal Register (82 FR 17387). That final rule adjusted the management boundaries, zones, and annual catch limits for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel (Atlantic king mackerel). The commercial quota for Atlantic king mackerel in the southern zone is 4,540,640 lb (2,059,600 kg) for the current fishing year, March 1, 2017, through February 28, 2018 (50 CFR 622.384(b)(2)(ii)).

The Atlantic king mackerel southern zone encompasses an area of Federal waters south of a line extending from the state border of North Carolina and South Carolina, as specified in 50 CFR 622.2, and north of a line extending due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (50 CFR 622.369(a)(2)(ii)). From October 1 through January 31, the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from the southern zone that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is 50 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(A)).

However, if NMFS determines that less than 70 percent of the Atlantic southern zone commercial quota has been harvested by February 1, then during the month of February, the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from a specified area of the southern zone that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is increased to 75 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(D)). The area of the southern zone in which the commercial trip limit increase applies is in Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida, and north of 25°20′24″ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida.

NMFS has determined that less than 70 percent of the commercial quota for Atlantic king mackerel in the southern zone was harvested by February 1, 2018. Accordingly, a 75-fish commercial trip limit applies to vessels fishing for king mackerel in or from Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat. and north of 25°20′24″ N lat. off the east coast of Florida in the Atlantic southern zone effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, February 5, 2018. The 75-fish trip limit will remain in effect through February 28, 2018, or until the commercial quota is reached and the southern zone closes. On March 1, 2018, the new fishing year begins and a commercial trip limit of 50 fish will again be in effect for this area.

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(D) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit increase constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the commercial trip limits has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit increase. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and delay the fishers' ability to catch more king mackerel to harvest the commercial quota and achieve optimum yield, and would prevent fishers from reaping the socioeconomic benefits associated with this increased commercial trip limit.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).