Federal Register Vol. 83, No.33,

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved in, or that pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy of the United States. The EAR imposes additional licensing requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those persons or entities listed on the Entity List. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List based on certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-user Review Committee (ERC) is composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and where appropriate, the Treasury. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. The Departments represented on the ERC have approved these changes to the Entity List.

This rule adds twenty-one entities to the Entity List. These twenty-one entities are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The twenty-one entities being added to the Entity List consist of one entity in Georgia, one entity in Poland and ninteteen entities in Russia.

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. The entities being added to the Entity List have been determined to be involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, in this rule, BIS adds entities to the Entity List for violating international law and fueling the conflict in eastern Ukraine. These additions ensure the efficacy of existing sanctions on Russia. The particular additions to the Entity List and related authorities are described below.

Four entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13660 (79 FR 13493), Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued on March 6, 2014. As described in the Executive Order, the actions and policies of persons who have asserted governmental authority in Crimea without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Executive Order 13660 blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine, among other activities. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), pursuant to Executive Order 13660, has designated the following four entities as being within the scope of the Order: Doncoaltrade SP Z O O; Kompaniya Gaz-Alyans; Ugolnye Tekhnologii, OOO; and ZAO Vneshtorgservis. In conjunction with that designation, the Department of Commerce adds all four entities to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these blocked persons. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13660.

Two entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13661 (79 FR 15533), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued on March 16, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014 (79 FR 13493). As described in Executive Order 13661, the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine—including the deployment of Russian military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine—undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Executive Order 13661 includes a directive that all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or thereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: Persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State to have either materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of a senior official of the government of the Russian Federation or operate in the defense or related materiel sector in Russia. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's OFAC, pursuant to Executive Order 13661, on behalf of the Secretary of Treasury, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following two entities as being within the scope of the Order: Evro Polis Ltd. and Instar Lodzhistiks, OOO. BIS is also adding these entities to the Entity List pursuant to Executive Order 13661. The two entities added to the Entity List under Executive Order 13661 meet the criteria of Section 1, subparagraph B of the Executive Order 13661 because they operate in Russia's arms or related materiel sector. With respect to these two entities, BIS imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these entities. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13661.

Twelve entities are added to the Entity List based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13662 (79 FR 16169), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued on March 20, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014 and expanded in Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014.

Specifically, Executive Order 13662 expanded the scope to include sectors of the Russian economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related materiel. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's OFAC, pursuant to Executive Order 13662, on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following twelve entities as operating in the energy sector of Russia and owned or controlled by, or have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, a person whose property and interests are blocked pursuant to the Order: Kaliningradnefteprodukt OOO; Kinef OOO; Kirishiavtoservis OOO; Lengiproneftekhim OOO; Media-Invest OOO; Novgorodnefteprodukt OOO; Pskovnefteprodukt OOO; SNGB AO; SO Tvernefteprodukt OOO; Sovkhoz Chervishevski PAO; Strakhovove Obshchestvo Surgutneftegaz OOO; and Surgutmebel OOO. In conjunction with that designation, BIS adds all twelve of the entities to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these blocked persons, when the exporter, reexporter or transferor knows that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or is unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of BIS to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13662.

Three entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13685 (79 FR 77357), Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine, issued on December 19, 2014. In order to take additional steps to address the Russian occupation of the Crimea region of Ukraine with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, and expanded in Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014, and Executive Order 13662 of March 20, 2014, certain additional prohibitions with respect to the Crimea region of Ukraine were imposed. In particular, Executive Order 13685 prohibits the export, reexport, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the Crimea region of Ukraine. Under Section 10 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

The Department of the Treasury's OFAC, pursuant to Executive Order 13685, on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following three entities as operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine: Limited Liability Company Foreign Economic Association Technopomexport; PJSC Power Machines; and VAD, AO. In conjunction with these designations, BIS adds all three of these entities to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these blocked persons. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13685.

For the twenty-one entities added to the Entity List based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13660, 13661, 13662 or 13685, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items subject to the EAR are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the entities or in which such entities act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the entities being added to the Entity List in this rule.

The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to help exporters, reexporters and transferors to better identify listed persons on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following twenty-one entities to the Entity List:

Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

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

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

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implementation of this rule is necessary to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) to the entities being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the twenty-one entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List and would create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule.

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Industry and Security amends part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) as follows:

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for March 2018.1

The March 2018 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for February 2018, these assumptions are unchanged.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during March 2018, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard was notified about the race on December 1, 2017 and there were multiple revisions over the following three weeks. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this action. Waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and participants from the dangers associated with the high-speed boat race scheduled to start on February 23, 2018.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds good cause to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Immediate implementation is required to protect the public and participants from the dangers associated with these activities.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The COTP North Carolina has determined that potential hazards associated with the Iconic Marine Group Kilo Race scheduled on February 23 and February 24, 2018, with an alternate date February 25, 2018, is a safety concern for mariners during the high-speed boat race on the Pamlico River near Washington, North Carolina. This rule is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the high-speed boat race.

This rule establishes a special local regulation on a portion of the Pamlico River on February 23 and February 24, 2018, with an alternate date of February 25, 2018, in the event that weather or other factors do not allow the race to commence on the primary dates. The special local regulation will be enforced for approximately one hour between the hours of 7 a.m. and noon, when environmental conditions meet the requirements for the race. The exact times of enforcement will be broadcast locally over VHF-FM marine radio. The special local regulation will include all navigable waters of the Pamlico River near Washington, North Carolina, from approximate positions: Latitude 35°28′42″ N, longitude 076°59′14″ W, then northwest to latitude 35°29′53″ N, longitude 077°01′18″ W, then northwest along the shoreline to latitude 35°32′29″ N, longitude 077°03′47″ W, then northwest to latitude 35°32′34″ N, longitude 077°03′56″ W, then northeast to latitude 35°32′42″ N, longitude 077°03′50″ W, then southeast along the shoreline to latitude 35°29′06″ N, longitude 076°58′48″ W, then southwest back to the point of origin, a length of approximately six miles. The duration of this special local regulation is intended to protect participants, spectators, and property on the navigable waters of the Pamlico River during the high-speed boat race. This is a timed race and only one boat will race at a time. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the special local regulation unless specifically authorized by the COTP North Carolina or a designated representative. Spectators may request to be allowed inside the special local regulation. The spectator area will be marked with temporary buoys and will be at least 100 yards from the race course. Vessels may request permission to pass through the special local regulation between race heats.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed special local regulation. Vessel traffic will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of the Pamlico River on February 23 and February 24, 2018 with an alternate date of February 25, 2018 for approximately one hour on each day. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the special local regulation. The specific enforcement times will be broadcast locally each day prior to the race on VHF-FM marine channel 16. This portion of the Pamlico River has been determined to be a low traffic area during this time of the year. This rule allows vessels to request permission to enter as a spectator or pass through the special local regulation.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting approximately one hour on three consecutive days that prohibits entry into a portion of the Pamlico River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Drawbridge operation regulations authorize changes to drawbridge schedules to accommodate bridge repairs, seasonal vessel traffic, and local public events. Regulated Navigation Areas are water areas within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established by the regional Coast Guard District Commander.

Timely publication of these rules in the Federal Register may be precluded when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, often informed of these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because Federal Register publication was not possible before the end of the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents of these safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas or drawbridge operation regulations by Coast Guard officials on-scene prior to any enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these temporary safety zones, security zones, special local regulations, regulated navigation areas and drawbridge operation regulations. Permanent rules are not included in this list because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.

The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between October 2017 to December 2017 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit www.regulations.gov and search by the docket number indicated in the following table.

On occasion, protected VIPs will arrive or depart Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA, which is located within the Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. These visits require the implementation of heightened security measures for protection of VIPs who may travel over or on portions of the Delaware River or Schuylkill River on their route to or from the airport. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect the VIP and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist acts. This rule will allow expedited enforcement of the security zone for protected VIPs traveling to or from Philadelphia International Airport when short notice is provided to the COTP.

On May 15, 2017, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Security Zone; Delaware River, Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, PA” (82 FR 22301). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this proposed permanent security zone. During the comment period that ended June 14, 2017, we received one comment.

The Coast Guard is establishing this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect VIPs and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist acts.

As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published May 15, 2017. The comment had seven questions regarding establishment of the permanent security zone.

1. Necessity of zone. The commenter asked about the relevance of the security zone and requested that the Coast Guard provide assurance that the implementation of the security zone is necessary.

Response: The Coast Guard has historically implemented security zones of this general size in this general location when notified by the U.S. Secret Service that a protected VIP will be transiting to or from the Philadelphia International Airport. Often, there has been little advanced notice to the Coast Guard associated with these requests. The security zone itself is a necessary tool to protect traveling VIPs and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential terrorist acts. No specific threats have been identified; however, the airport's proximity to the Delaware River and Schuylkill River expose it to some waterborne risks. Although permanent, the security zone will only be enforced during times a VIP is arriving or departing from the Philadelphia International Airport. The security zone can only be used for this specific purpose. Any further restrictions or events that may require a security zone, not related to the movement of VIPs to or from the airport, will be conducted through separate rulemaking action.

In the past, similar temporary security zones in this general area have been established in order to provide protection for traveling VIPs. The creation of security zones in this manner, by necessity, has limited opportunity to the public for advanced notification of establishment and enforcement procedures and intentions. While this rule does not provide the exact times and dates that the security zone will be enforced, the resulting public awareness better serves the maritime community and industry operating on this portion of the Delaware River by establishing a pre-determined location and guidelines in the event of activation. The establishment of this permanent security zone provides the best opportunity for public awareness and notification. This regulatory text has been amended to include this limitation.

2. Advance notification of enforcement. The commenter asked how much advanced notice the Coast Guard anticipates giving the maritime community prior to enforcing the security zone.

Response: The Coast Guard will enforce this security zone for the protection of VIPs. The details of a protected VIP's movements are of national security significance and therefore cannot be publicized in advance. The Coast Guard will give as much on-scene notice as possible to allow the maritime community to make changes to their schedules. Advance on-scene notice under this permanent security zone will be consistent with past temporary security zones for VIP travel. On-scene notification will be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) as well as actual notice. Additionally, law enforcement vessels enforcing the security zone will be operating with rotating blue lights which will indicate activation of the security zone; the blue lights will be turned off to notify public of deactivation of the security zone. We have amended the regulatory text for additional clarity in regards to how notification will be provided.

3. Average time of enforcement. The commenter asked about the average length of enforcement.

Response: In the past, similar temporary security zones in this area have been established in order to provide protection for traveling VIPs. These previously established security zones have historically lasted anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours from start to finish. Although we cannot predict the length of the enforcement of the permanent security zones during each activation, we expect that length of time for enforcement of the security zone will stay within the 15 minute to 2 hours time frame.

4. Notification of enforcement period. The commenter requested that the Coast Guard's notification to the public of the security zone include the duration of the enforcement and that Coast Guard issue separate communication to the public when the enforcement period is over.

Response: The Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay Command Center will provide a notice of the enforcement of the security zone via marine broadcast. On scene, the Patrol Commander will notify the maritime community of the time periods for the enforcement of the security zone via marine broadcast and other means as needed per 33 CFR 165.7.

5. Access while the zone is in effect. The commenter asked the Coast Guard to indicate those critical criteria that would preclude a vessel from remaining in or transiting through the zone while the zone is being enforced and to outline the process for gaining approval to remain in or transit through the security zone.

Response: The Coast Guard will assess a vessel wishing to remain in or transit through the security zone on a case by case basis. Vessel details, such as location, size, cargo, and transit history, will be evaluated to determine who may or may not remain in or transit through the security zone. The Coast Guard will evaluate this information internally and give direction to the Patrol Commander enforcing the security zone. Vessels wishing to transit or remain in the zone must contact and request permission from the Patrol Commander via VHF-FM channel 13 or 16.

6. Ships/barges at the berth or anchorage for cargo and/or bunkering operations. The commenter asked that the Coast Guard continue to allow vessels anchored or at berth to continue to conduct cargo and bunkering operations while the Coast Guard is enforcing the security zone. Historically, cargo and bunkering operations have been allowed during the implementation and enforcement of this temporary security zone.

Response: The Coast Guard does not anticipate requiring ships or barges at berths or anchorages within the security zone to stop cargo or bunkering operations during the enforcement of the security zone unless the transfer operations pose a hazard during the enforcement period.

7. Maritime Transportation System Recovery Unit (MTSRU). The commenter asked the Coast Guard to stand up the Maritime Transportation System Recovery Unit (MTSRU) to mitigate any issues and have a standardized location for communication.

Response: The Coast Guard does not intend to stand up the MTSRU when enforcing the security zone because historically enforcement periods have been so short that MTSRU is not required. If an event significantly disrupts traffic, the Coast Guard will establish a MTSRU. Otherwise, Sector Delaware Bay's Command Center, manned 24 hours, is the point of contact for any issues regarding vessel intentions and traffic management issues, and can address emergent traffic or operations issues.

We made four changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. First, we noted that the coordinates listed in paragraph (a), Location, use North American Datum 83. Second, we made stylistic changes to the format of the contents of paragraph (b), Definitions. Third, within paragraph (b), Definitions, we defined the meanings and intent of the term Very Important Person (VIP). Fourth, we have amended paragraph (d), Enforcement, to specifically state that the security zone can only be used in relation to the movement of VIPs to or from the Philadelphia International Airport.

This rule establishes a permanent security zone on all waters of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Philadelphia International airport, within an area bound to the west by a line drawn from the New Jersey shoreline at Thompson Point, latitude 39°50′37″ N, longitude 75°18′23″ W, thence northwest to the Pennsylvania shoreline at latitude 39°51′45″ N, longitude 75°18′46″ W; thence up river and bound shoreline to shoreline; bound to the east by a line drawn from the New Jersey shoreline at latitude 39°52′28″ N, longitude 75°11′14″ W, and thence northwest to the Pennsylvania shoreline near the eastern side of mouth to the Schuylkill River at latitude 39°53′05″ N, longitude 75°11′34″ W; the security zone extends north into the waters of Schuylkill River, bound from shoreline to shoreline, including the waters of Schuylkill River adjacent to the Navy Yard Reserve Basin Bridge, and terminates along a line drawn from latitude 39°54′04″ N, longitude 75°12′56″ W, thence eastward across the Schuylkill River to latitude 39°54′07″ N, longitude 75°12′48″ W, located approximately 500 yards northwest and parallel with the George C. Platt Memorial—Penrose Avenue lift-bridge. This security zone will be enforced with actual notice by the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as other methods listed in 33 CFR 165.7.

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

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

This regulatory action is based on the security zone's size, location, and duration. Although the security zone area covers a large portion of the navigable waterways, mariners may request permission from COTP Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay or the designated representative to transit or remain in the security zone. Furthermore, the duration of the security zone would not significantly impact vessels because of the small amount of time it takes for protected VIP to transit to or from the airport. Advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and MSIB so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone generally lasting no more than 2 hours, which will restrict vessels from anchoring or transiting in portions of the Delaware River while protected VIPs arrive or depart from the Philadelphia International Airport. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by February 10, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It is also contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures necessary to protect life and property from the possible hazards associated with the power cable laying project.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule is contrary to public interest because it would delay the safety measures necessary to respond to potential safety hazards associated with this project. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with the power cable laying project on the waterway.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the power cable laying project from February 10, 2018 through March 30, 2018 will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons in the vicinity of the Kokosing Cable Lay Barge located between positions 30°21′26.0″ N, 87°09′13.0″ W and 30°20′04.7″ N, 87°08′20.8″ W on the Santa Rosa Sound, Pensacola Beach, FL. This rule is needed to protect the public, mariners, and vessels from the potential hazards associated with a power cable laying project on the waterway.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone encompassing all navigable waters within a 500 yard radius of the power cable laying project in the vicinity of the Kokosing Cable Lay Barge located between positions 30°21′26.0″ N, 87°09′13.0″ W and 30°20′04.7″ N, 87°08′20.8″ W from February 10, 2018 through March 30, 2018. The location and duration of this safety zone is intended to protect persons and vessels during the power cable laying project taking place on this navigable waterway. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter or transit within the safety zone, unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Mobile. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 251-441-5976. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to the event through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM).

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

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

This regulatory determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This temporary safety zone will only restrict navigation in a 500 yard radius portion of the Santa Rosa Sound, in Pensacola Beach, FL for duration of the power cable laying project. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within a 500 yard radius of the Kokosing Cable Lay Barge on the Santa Rosa Sound. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The construction of the Pensacola Bay Bridge has advanced to the phase requiring the presence of vessels, barges, and cranes that are now working in and around the main navigation channel and other areas frequently navigated by recreational vessels. Hazards associated with this phase of the construction include accidental falling debris, submerged objects, collision, allision, and other navigational hazards. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone immediately to prevent injury to persons and vessels and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because of the potential safety hazards associated with the work.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge work that is currently ongoing will be a safety concern for anyone within 500 yards of the construction of the new Pensacola Bay Bridge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the bridge work is being completed.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone effective from February 7, 2018 until December 31, 2020 on Pensacola within 500 yards of the construction of the new Pensacola Bay Bridge in Pensacola, FL. The safety zone is needed to protect life and property from the hazards associated with the construction of the new bridge on Pensacola Bay. This rulemaking restricts speed to an idle speed or slowest safe speed for all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of people and vessels on these navigable waters during the construction of the new bridge.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the rulemaking. This safety zone will be in place within 500 yards of the construction of the new Pensacola Bay Bridge until the estimated completion of the bridge on December 31, 2020. Vessels are permitted to enter the safety zone, but must do so at idle or the slowest safe speed. Additionally, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under executive order 13175, consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zone within 500 yards of the construction of the new Pensacola Bay Bridge on Pensacola Bay, Pensacola, FL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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

On August 14, 2017, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) (82 FR 37829) and Direct Final Rulemaking (DFRN) (82 FR 37819) proposing to approve and approving, respectively, Connecticut's demonstration that its nonattainment new source review regulations approved into the state implementation plan meet the requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. The demonstration was submitted on March 9, 2017 by the CT DEEP as a SIP revision. In the DFRN, EPA stated that if an adverse comment were to be submitted to EPA by September 13, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect, and a final rule would be issued based on the NPR. EPA received one adverse comment prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, EPA withdrew the DFRN on October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47630). This action is a final rule based on the NPR. A detailed discussion of Connecticut's March 9, 2017 SIP revision and EPA's rationale for approving the SIP revision was provided in the DFRN and will not be restated here, except to the extent it is relevant to our response to the public comment we received.

EPA received one adverse comment on its August 14, 2017 (82 FR 37829) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Comment: The commenter stated that EPA is required to evaluate Connecticut's NNSR SIP as it relates to the ozone transport region (OTR) requirements in section 184 of the CAA.

Response: The Connecticut SIP's NNSR requirements are at least as stringent, and in some instances more stringent, than what is required by CAA section 184. That is the reason why EPA's DFRN did not discuss the section 184 requirements. As stated in the DFRN, Connecticut's SIP-approved NNSR regulation contains the CAA's NNSR requirements applicable to serious and severe nonattainment areas, even though the two nonattainment areas in the State are now classified as moderate nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Connecticut retained these requirements based on its designations and classifications associated with the earlier, revoked 1-hour ozone standard, effective November 15, 1990. For example, the Connecticut SIP's major stationary source threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the area of the State defined in the SIP as a “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” is 25 tons per year. The SIP defines “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” as 24 specific towns, independently from how these towns are currently classified under the ozone NAAQS. The SIP defines the remaining towns in the State as “Serious nonattainment area for ozone.” The Connecticut SIP's major stationary source threshold for NOX and VOC in the area of the State defined in the SIP as a “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” is 50 tons per year. Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA provides that stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of VOCs shall be considered a major stationary source and are subject to the requirements that would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a moderate nonattainment area. For areas within the OTR that are classified as marginal nonattainment, moderate nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, the major stationary source threshold for sources of NOX is 100 tons per year. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(2). Thus, Connecticut's NNSR SIP contains major stationary source thresholds that are at least as stringent as, and in some instances more stringent than, the thresholds required by CAA section 184 and EPA's implementing regulations.

Connecticut's NNSR SIP also contains more stringent modification thresholds for VOC and NOX, as precursors to ozone, in the State's SIP definition of “Major modification.” The Connecticut SIP's major modification thresholds for NOX and VOC are both 25 tons per year. Under the CAA's implementing regulations, for areas within the OTR that are classified as marginal nonattainment, moderate nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, the major modification thresholds for both ozone precursors is 40 tons per year. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x). Thus, Connecticut's NNSR SIP contains major modification thresholds that are more stringent than the thresholds required by CAA section 184 and EPA's implementing regulations.

Connecticut's NNSR SIP is at least as stringent in all respects as compared to the OTR requirements contained in CAA section 184. By demonstrating that Connecticut's NNSR SIP meets the requirements for serious or severe nonattainment areas, the Connecticut SIP is shown to be as stringent, or in some instances, more stringent, than the requirements of section 184 of the CAA as it pertains to the NNSR permit program.

EPA is approving Connecticut's March 9, 2017, SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for both nonattainment areas in the State. The approval encompasses both the original designations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of marginal and the subsequent reclassification of both nonattainment areas to moderate. The approval also includes the applicable NNSR provisions of Connecticut's regulations that satisfy the CAA's anti-backsliding requirements. That is, Connecticut's SIP retains the NNSR requirements applicable to serious and severe nonattainment areas (associated with the earlier, revoked 1-hour ozone standard), even though the two nonattainment areas in the State are now classified as moderate nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. By demonstrating that Connecticut's SIP meets the NNSR requirements for serious and severe nonattainment areas, EPA has concluded that the State's submission fulfills the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1114, and meets the requirements of CAA sections 110, 182, and 184 as well as the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

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

• 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by April 17, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

The EPA is approving a source-specific State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Units 1 and 2 of the Roseton Generating Station submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on April 18, 2017. The EPA is approving emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Roseton Units 1 and 2 that are equivalent to the emission limits established by the EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which was promulgated on August 28, 2012 (77 FR 51915).

In its submittal, the NYSDEC included the following BART emission limits for Roseton Units 1 and 2: 0.55 pounds of SO2 per million British thermal unit (lb SO2/MMBtu) calculated on a 24-hour average for each unit.1 As a result of the EPA's approval, the EPA is withdrawing those portions of the FIP that address BART for Roseton Units 1 and 2. The reader is referred to the EPA's proposal, 82 FR 48942 (October 23, 2017), for a detailed discussion of this SIP revision.

During the public comment period, three interested parties submitted comments on the EPA's proposal. Two comments expressed support of this action. A third commenter expressed support for the benefits of reduced sulfur for public health and raised the following two additional comments.

Comment 1: The commenter questioned the need for the SIP revision since the FIP was already in place.

Response: The Clean Air Act (CAA) obligates the EPA to act on a State's SIP submittal or revision, provided the submittal meets minimum completeness criteria. CAA section 110(k) (1); 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Because the SIP revision meets CAA requirements, we are required to approve it. See CAA section 110(k)(3), (l).

Comment 2: The commenter suggested that the State should submit new or updated enforcement rules.

Response: It is unclear what the commenter means by “new or updated enforcement rules.” NYSDEC submitted a SIP revision to address the BART requirements for Roseton Units 1 and 2. The commenter has not identified any issues with the SIP revision that would warrant a change in the EPA's proposal to approve it.

The EPA has evaluated the Roseton SIP Revision and is determining that it meets the requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. Therefore, the EPA is approving the BART emission limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements) for Roseton Units 1 and 2, which are identical to those contained in the EPA's 2012 FIP: 0.55 pounds of SO2 per million British thermal unit (lb SO2/MMBtu) calculated on a 24-hour average for each unit (Units 1 and 2). Consequently, the EPA is withdrawing those portions of the 2012 FIP that address BART for Roseton Units 1 and 2.

At the time of the proposal, Roseton and Danskammer were the only two sources in New York State subject to the Regional Haze FIP (77 FR 51915). In a separate action, effective January 3, 2018, the EPA withdrew the FIP requirements for Danskammer after approving a source-specific SIP (82 FR 57126). In this action, the EPA is similarly approving a source-specific SIP for Roseton and withdrawing the FIP requirements for that facility. Upon the effective date of the Federal Register notice, the requirements in the approved SIP for Roseton Generating Station Units 1 and 2 will apply, the FIP requirements for Roseton Generating Station Units 1 and 2 will be withdrawn, and the Regional Haze FIP, 40 CFR 52.1686, will be removed in its entirety.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a single-source SIP revision, dated April 18, 2017, for Roseton Units 1 and 2 (Facility DEC ID 3334600075), including Title V permit conditions (permit ID 3-3346-00075/0008) that include BART emission limits for SO2. The summary of emission limits and other enforceable requirements in this SIP revision are included in section I of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it will result in the approval of a SIP submitted by the NYSDEC for Roseton Units 1 and 2. Approval of SIPs falls within a category of actions that is exempt from review by OMB. It was therefore not submitted to OMB for review.

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action falls within the category of actions that OMB has exempted from review. This action specifically is an approval of a SIP.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).3 Because this final rule has identical recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the EPA's 2012 FIP, the PRA does not apply.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Because this final rule has identical BART emission limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) to the EPA's 2012 FIP, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). As explained previously, the SIP revision being approved in this action includes identical BART emission limits and related administrative requirements (i.e., monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements) to the EPA's 2012 FIP.

This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicability.

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 17, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

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

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

On January 10, 2003, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted a SIP revision for Env-A 1000 (Prevention, Abatement and Control of Open Source Air Pollution). On August 9, 2011, NH DES submitted an updated version of this regulation. Because the 2011 submittal superseded the previous submission, the State withdrew the 2003 submittal on May 5, 2014. The withdrawal letter is included in the docket for this action.

On July 23, 2013, NH DES submitted Env-A 1900 (Incinerators and Wood Waste Burners) and Env-A 101.104 (definition of “Incinerator”) to EPA for approval. Env-A 1900 is not currently part of the federally-approved New Hampshire SIP. The definition of the term “Incinerator” is currently part of the New Hampshire SIP, but is codified at Env-A 101.59 1 and does not include a reference to “wood-waste burners.” The submitted definition of “Incinerator” adds “wood-waste burners” to the definition and is codified at Env-A 101.104. The current SIP-approved version of the definition of “Incinerator” (Env-A 101.59) will be replaced by the new definition of that term (Env-A 101.104) as a result of this approval.

A definition of “Wood Waste Burner” is currently part of the New Hampshire SIP, but is codified as Env-A 101.95 and explicitly excludes incinerators. On October 26, 2016, NH DES submitted a revision of the definition of “Wood Waste Burner” (Env-A 101.219) to EPA for approval. This revised definition does not exclude incinerators. The current SIP-approved version of the definition of “Wood Waste Burner” (Env-A 101.95) will be replaced by the new definition of that term (Env-A 101.219) as a result of this approval.

The version of Env-A 1900 (Incinerators and Wood Waste Burners) submitted by the State to EPA included an affirmative defense provision for malfunction, which is defined as a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment. On April 13, 2016, NH DES sent a letter to EPA withdrawing the affirmative defense provision in Env-A 1900 (i.e., 1902.02). In addition, an earlier SIP submission of Env-A 1900 had included an exception to the 20-percent visible emissions limit that would have allowed these emissions to be exceeded for one period of 6 continuous minutes in any 60-minute period during startup, shutdown, or malfunction. However, NH DES removed this exception from the July 23, 2013 submittal.

These SIP revisions establish rules for open burning and establish emission standards and operating practices for incinerators and wood waste burners that are not regulated pursuant to Federal incinerator standards. New Hampshire also submitted revisions to the definitions of “Incinerator” and “Wood Waste Burner” on July 23, 2013 and October 26, 2016, respectively.

On September 6, 2017, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR 42054) and Direct Final Rulemaking (DFRN) (82 FR 42037) proposing to approve and approving, respectively, the revisions submitted by New Hampshire on August 9, 2011, July 23, 2013, and October 26, 2016.

In the DFRN, EPA stated that if an adverse comment were to be submitted to EPA by October 6, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect, and a final rule would be issued based on the NPR. EPA received a comment that is not relevant to this SIP action, and one adverse comment that is relevant, before the close of the comment period. Therefore, EPA withdrew the DFRN on November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51349).

This action is a final rule based on the NPR. A detailed discussion of New Hampshire's August 9, 2011; July 23, 2013; and October 26, 2016, SIP revisions, and EPA's rationale for approving these were provided in the DFRN and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comments we received.

EPA received public comments from anonymous commenters on our September 6, 2017 NPR. All of the comments are contained in the docket for this final action. One commenter submitted a comment that is not relevant to this SIP action and, therefore, requires no response. One commenter submitted two comments that are adverse and are discussed below.

Comment 1: An anonymous commenter noted that the proposed revisions to New Hampshire's Env-A 1000 (Prevention, Abatement and Control of Open Source Air Pollution) removes the reference to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment areas for particulate matter (PM) pollution that appears in the current SIP-approved version of Env-A 1000. The commenter stated that “EPA should not be allowed to reduce emission standards just because a corporation or company incinerator wants to burn more wood. Wood is a particularly dirty fuel source that causes significant particulate matter pollution both 2.5 microns and 10 microns.”

Response 1: The SIP-approved Env-A 1000 (provision 1001.02) allowed for certain types of open burning if: (1) Not prohibited by local ordinance or officials having jurisdiction, such as state forest fire wardens, and (2) where the particular area has not been designated nonattainment in relation to the NAAQS for PM. Under Env-A 1000, such burning was allowed in NAAQS nonattainment areas for PM (when not prohibited by local ordinance or officials having jurisdiction) if written authorization had been obtained by the NH DES. In the revised version of Env-A 1000, the State has removed the restriction on these activities in nonattainment areas for particulates. EPA believes that the version of Env-A 1000 we are approving is consistent with CAA requirements for SIP revisions, notwithstanding the absence of references to nonattainment areas for NAAQS as a limiting condition on certain types of burning. Because there have never been any designated nonattainment areas for PM in New Hampshire, the current provision is not in fact imposing any restrictions on emissions. Thus, the emissions reductions attributable to the revised version of Env-A 1000 we are approving is functionally the same as the prior version. Moreover, we note that the current ambient levels of PM within the State are below the currently applicable PM NAAQS. In the event that ambient PM in New Hampshire were to exceed the applicable NAAQS, we would expect the State to add additional emissions controls to address the appropriate sources to bring the area back into attainment.

Comment 2: The same anonymous commenter asserted that the “EPA also can't remove nuisance provisions as they can cover enforcement of NAAQS pollutants that cause nuisances to neighboring communities and disadvantages communities. Sometimes only nuisance provisions are the only enforcement mechanism available to the little people that can't afford big lawyers or consent decrees with big companies.”

Response 2: New Hampshire's revision to Env-A 1000 removes two references to “nuisance” in the current SIP, which was approved in 1994. EPA believes that the State's revised version of the regulation is approvable under the CAA because the term “nuisance” in Env-A 1000, as defined in state law, is a broad concept that could be applied to prohibit impacts that bear no reasonable connection to the NAAQS and related air-quality goals of the CAA. The fact that something may cause a nuisance does not necessarily equate to a condition that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. The wording of the prior version of the SIP provision was not sufficiently related to attainment and maintenance of the PM NAAQS to warrant inclusion in the SIP. See, for example, analogous instances in which EPA has removed from SIPs certain regulations that prohibit odors (61 FR 47058, September 6, 1996), or that contain a general prohibition against air pollution (63 FR 65557, November 27, 1998).

EPA is approving and incorporating two regulations into the New Hampshire SIP. The two regulations include revised Env-A 1000 (Prevention, Abatement and Control of Open Source Air Pollution) submitted by the State of New Hampshire on August 9, 2011, effective on May 1, 2011; and Env-A 1900 (Incinerators and Wood Waste Burners) submitted by the State on July 23, 2013, effective April 23, 2013, except for the withdrawn affirmative defense provision. The revised version of Env-A 1000 that we are approving into the SIP will replace the existing SIP-approved version of Env-A 1000.

In addition, EPA is approving a revised definition of “Incinerator” (Env-A 101.104), submitted by the State on July 23, 2013, effective April 23, 2013, which replaces the definition of “Incinerator” currently in the New Hampshire SIP (numbered Env-A 101.59). We are also approving a revised definition of “Wood Waste Burner” (Env-A 101.219), submitted by the State on October 26, 2016, effective January 14, 2005, which replaces the definition of “Wood Waste Burner” currently in the New Hampshire SIP (numbered Env-A 101.95). Thus, the SIP at Env-A 101.59 and at Env-A 101.95 will read “[reserved].”

New Hampshire organizes Env-A 101 (Definitions) alphabetically, and also assigns a codification number, in sequential order, to each defined term. Because the State's SIP submissions did not include the entirety of Env-A 101, and the State has added other definitions to Env-A 101 over time (not all of which are SIP-approved), our approval of the two definitions in this action will result in the numbered codification assigned to the defined terms being out of numerical sequence in the SIP. However, the two defined terms will still be in alphabetical order.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

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

• 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 20, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 17, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of August 1, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-9911-67), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8245) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.361 be amended by increasing the tolerances for residues of the herbicide pendimethalin, [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, in or on alfalfa, forage to 80 parts per million (ppm) and alfalfa, hay to 150 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0397 at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for pendimethalin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pendimethalin follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The target organ for pendimethalin is the thyroid. Thyroid toxicity in chronic and subchronic rat and mouse studies was manifested as alterations in thyroid hormones (decreased total T4 and T3, increased percent of free T4 and T3), increased thyroid weight, and microscopic thyroid lesions (including increased thyroid follicular cell height, follicular cell hyperplasia, as well as follicular cell adenomas). Due to these effects, the Agency required that a developmental thyroid assay be conducted to evaluate the impact of pendimethalin on thyroid hormones, structure, and/or thyroid hormone homeostasis during development. A developmental thyroid study was submitted and demonstrated that there is no potential thyroid toxicity following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to pendimethalin.

There is no evidence that pendimethalin is a developmental, reproductive, neurotoxic, or immunotoxic chemical. There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young. EPA classified pendimethalin as a “Group C”, possible human carcinogen based on a statistically significant increased trend and pair-wise comparison between the high-dose group and controls for thyroid follicular cell adenomas in male and female rats. A non-quantitative approach (i.e., non-linear, reference dose (RfD) approach) was used to assess cancer risk since mode-of-action studies are available to demonstrate that the thyroid tumors are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, and also since pendimethalin was shown to be non-mutagenic in mammalian somatic cells and germ cells.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pendimethalin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79267) (FRL-9937-18).

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pendimethalin used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to pendimethalin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pendimethalin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.361. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pendimethalin in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

Such effects were identified for pendimethalin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16 software with 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, and 100 PCT for all commodities.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to pendimethalin. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for pendimethalin. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. In drinking water, the residue of concern is pendimethalin, parent only. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pendimethalin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of pendimethalin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) and Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pendimethalin for acute exposures are estimated to be 96.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.38 × 10-9 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, they are estimated to be 9.73 ppb for surface water.

For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 96.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 9.73 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Pendimethalin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf, home gardens, and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:

• For handlers, it is assumed that residential use will result in short-term (1 to 30 days) duration dermal and inhalation exposures.

• Residential post-application exposure is also assumed to be short-term (1-30 days) in duration, resulting from the following exposure scenarios:

• Gardening: Adults (dermal) and children 6 < 11 years old (dermal);

• Physical activities on turf: Adults (dermal) and children 1-2 years old (dermal and incidental oral);

• Mowing turf: Adults (dermal) and children 11 < 16 years old (dermal); and

• Exposure to golf courses during golfing: Adults (dermal), children 11 < 16 years old (dermal), and children 6 < 11 years old (dermal).

EPA did not combine exposure resulting from adult handler and post-application exposure resulting from treated gardens, lawns, and/or golfing because the conservative assumptions and inputs within each estimated exposure scenario would result in an overestimate of adult exposure. EPA selected the most conservative adult residential scenario (adult dermal post-application exposure from gardening) as the contributing source of residential exposure to be combined with the dietary exposure for the aggregate assessment. The children's oral exposure is based on post-application hand-to-mouth exposures. To include exposure from object-to-mouth and soil ingestion in addition to hand-to-mouth would overestimate the potential for oral exposure. However, there is the potential for co-occurrence of dermal and oral exposure, since the toxicological effects from the dermal and oral routes of exposure are the same. As a result, the children's aggregate assessment combines post-application dermal and oral exposure along with dietary exposure from food and water. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

EPA has not found pendimethalin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pendimethalin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pendimethalin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no indication of pre- and/or post-natal qualitative or quantitative increased susceptibility in the developmental studies in rats and rabbits or the 2-generation reproduction studies in rats. A developmental thyroid toxicity study demonstrated that there is no potential thyroid toxicity following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to pendimethalin.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for pendimethalin is complete. Although a subchronic inhalation study was not available in the database, EPA determined that one is not needed at this time based on a weight-of-evidence analysis, considering the following: (1) All relevant hazard and exposure information, which indicates its low acute inhalation toxicity; (2) its physical/chemical properties, which indicate its low volatility; and (3) the use of an oral POD that results in a residential inhalation margin of exposure (MOE) more than 10X the level of concern (in the case of pendimethalin MOE = 30 based on thyroid POD).

ii. There is no indication that pendimethalin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that pendimethalin results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. In addition, a developmental thyroid toxicity study demonstrated that there is no potential thyroid toxicity following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to pendimethalin.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pendimethalin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pendimethalin.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to pendimethalin will occupy 2% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pendimethalin from food and water will utilize 2.4% of the cPAD for children one to two years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of pendimethalin is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Pendimethalin is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to pendimethalin.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 130 for adults and 92 for children 1-2 years old, the two population subgroups receiving the greatest combined dietary and non-dietary exposure. Because EPA's level of concern for pendimethalin is a MOE of 30 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, pendimethalin is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for pendimethalin.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has determined that an RfD approach based on the chronic point of departure is appropriate for evaluating cancer risk. As there are not chronic aggregate risks of concern, there are no cancer aggregate risk concerns.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology, gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD), is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

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

There are currently no established Codex MRLs for the residues of pendimethalin on alfalfa hay, although Codex has established an MRL for residues of pendimethalin in alfalfa fodder (which is equivalent to the US commodity of alfalfa forage) at 4 ppm. Harmonization is not possible because use of the Codex MRL would result in residues of pendimethalin exceeding tolerances in the U.S. as a result of use in accordance with the approved label.

Therefore, tolerances are established for plant residues by measuring only the sum of pendimethalin, [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on alfalfa, forage at 80 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 150 ppm. In addition, the Agency is revising the tolerance expression for paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that the residues of the parent compound are to be summed with the residues of the metabolite in order to determine compliance with the tolerance. This revision does not substantively change the existing language; the current language already requires measurement of both residues. The insertion of the words “the sum” just provides a small clarification for measuring residues to determine compliance with the tolerance.

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site, Mansfield and Foxborough, Massachusetts. A notification of deletion for this Site was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 56939) on December 1, 2017.

The closing date for comments on the notification of deletion was January 2, 2018. Six (6) public comments were received and three of the comments questioned whether EPA completed what is required under CERCLA and whether deletion of the Site was appropriate; the remaining three comments did not articulate a position on the proposed deletion. As a result of the comments, EPA published a notification of withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 4431) on January 31, 2018, withdrawing the direct final deletion for the Site and announcing it would evaluate and respond to the significant comments and, if appropriate, proceed with the traditional two-step deletion process.

After consideration of the comments received, EPA concluded that the deletion of the Site is still appropriate. Based on EPA's evaluation of the data, the remedy protects human health and the environment because remediation of the soil (soil removal and on-site consolidation) has been completed to cleanup levels that are considered protective for the anticipated future use of the property, there is no current use of on-site groundwater which is classified as non-potable, and institutional controls are in place. Operation and maintenance activities are on-going and will ensure that the consolidation area and associated components of the remedy (e.g., groundwater monitoring wells) remain in good condition. In addition, monitoring of groundwater will continue to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. Monitoring data collected as part of the operation and maintenance plan for the Site will continue to be collected for the foreseeable future and the data will be continuously evaluated. The data will be reported as part of the next Five- Year Review scheduled for 2019. During the Five-Year Review, EPA will evaluate whether the remedy remains protective. If additional actions are warranted, EPA will implement those actions. A responsiveness summary was prepared which addresses all comments received on the deletion and provides further rationale that the deletion is appropriate. The responsiveness summary may be viewed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001, on www.regulations.gov, and in the local repositories listed above.

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

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

The A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,075 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (82 FR 12032, February 27, 2017) and inseason adjustment (82 FR 60327, December 20, 2017).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,065 mt and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 12, 2018.

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

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