Federal Register Vol. 83, No.56,

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0017 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0017.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0017 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

The petition was filed by Raymond Lutz and Citizens Oversight Inc. Raymond Lutz is the founder and president of Citizens Oversight, Inc., a nonprofit organization.

The petitioners are requesting that the NRC revise part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) regarding spent nuclear fuel (SNF) stored in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at nuclear power stations. The petitioners are concerned that there is a mismatch between the NRC's 10 CFR part 72 regulations that define requirements for ISFSIs and the current situation, which the petitioners assert is that surface storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue indefinitely. The petitioners observe that 10 CFR part 72 was initially developed at a time when a repository was anticipated to be available in 1998 and, therefore, this PRM would address concerns with a much longer time frame for surface storage. The petitioners make 14 contentions that propose specific revisions to 10 CFR part 72 that would address issues concerning the indefinite surface storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems. In particular, the petitioners request that 10 CFR part 72 be revised to require: a 1,000 year design life goal for spent nuclear storage systems; estimates for the operating costs over the design life; determination of the safety margins over the design life; and time limited aging analyses demonstrating that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform for the design life. The petition may be found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18022B207.

The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 72 “regarding spent nuclear fuel.” The petitioners believe that “the actual situation has now changed, while the NRC regulations have not changed sufficiently to respect the current reality” of ongoing storage at nuclear plants and that the NRC should use a “Hardened, Extended-life, Local, Monitored Surface Storage” (HELMS) type of approach as further described in a white paper submitted with the petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML18022B213).

The petitioners contend that there is a timeframe difference between that of the useful life of an operating commercial nuclear plant and the storage of SNF at those nuclear plants indefinitely. The petitioners further contend that the “license term and renewal periods for the facility operating license and CoC are defined to be (up to) 40 years, and the design life is only implied as perhaps several multiples of the licensing period.” The petitioners' position is “that the design life should be explicitly defined as the initial 1,000 years.”

The HELMS approach would require that SNF containers be designed for a 1,000-year life goal “while still allowing a 40-year license term.” The petitioners provided a specific proposal for the HELMS approach to assist their description; however, the petitioners emphasized “that the HELMS proposal does not rely on the adoption of this specific proposal as long as the extended-life criterion is satisfied.” The petitioners stated that the 1,000-year design life goal “is likely NOT feasible without some monitoring and replacing part of the system on regular intervals.”

The petitioners also request enforcement action under § 2.206 of the NRC's regulations. The petitioners assert a violation of § 72.106, regarding the controlled area of an ISFSI or monitored retrievable storage installation, and ask for enforcement-related action, as appropriate; however, the petitioners have not provided information to support this charge. The NRC considered the request for review to determine whether the claim qualifies for enforcement-related action. The petitioners' claim does not constitute a valid request for action under § 2.206. The petitioners do not specify the action requested but leave it up to the NRC to determine (based on the limited information provided on page 10 of the petition) whether enforcement is warranted of a licensee's ISFSI or monitored retrievable storage installation. Although the petitioners allege that a licensee has violated the requirement, the petition does not provide the facts that constitute the basis for taking enforcement action. Therefore, the petitioners' claim does not meet the requirements for § 2.206 enforcement action.

The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (Act) required the Bureau to prescribe rules establishing such procedures as may be necessary to carry out hearings and adjudications conducted pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5563. 12 U.S.C. 5563(e). On July 28, 2011, the Bureau published an interim final rule seeking comment and prescribing rules establishing such hearings and procedures, with the exception of rules relating to the issuance of a temporary cease-and-desist order (TCDO) pursuant to section 1053(c) of the Act. 76 FR 45338 (July 28, 2011). The Bureau responded to comments received and published a final rule on June 29, 2012. 77 FR 39058 (June 29, 2012). This rule was codified at 12 CFR part 1081, subparts A-D. The Bureau published an interim final rule seeking comment and prescribing rules on TCDOs on September 26, 2013. 78 FR 59163 (Sept. 26, 2013). The Bureau received a single comment on this rule. Following consideration of the comment, the Bureau adopted the interim final rule without change on June 18, 2014. 79 FR 34622 (June 18, 2014). This rule was codified at 12 CFR part 1081, subpart E. Collectively, the rules codified at 12 CFR part 1081 are titled “Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings” (Rules). The Bureau issued a Request for Information (RFI) related to the Rules on February 5, 2018, 83 FR 5055, and now extends the period for comments responding to that RFI.

SBA establishes small business size definitions, commonly known as “size standards,” for private sector industries in the United States to determine eligibility for Federal small business assistance programs, including the SBA's 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs (“Business Loan Programs”). These size standards are established by 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry, typically based either on average annual receipts or on average number of employees. SBA uses financial assets and refining capacity to measure the size of a few specialized industries. See, 13 CFR part 121, Small Business Size Regulations.

On September 27, 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (“Jobs Act”) was enacted (Pub. L. 111-240). Section 1116 of the Jobs Act added a new Section 3(a)(5) to the Small Business Act that directed SBA to establish an alternative size standard using maximum tangible net worth and average net income for applicants of the SBA's Business Loan Programs. The Jobs Act also established for applicants for the SBA's Business Loan Programs a temporary alternative size standard of not more than $15 million in tangible net worth and of not more than $5 million in the average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over losses) of the applicant for the 2 full fiscal years before the date of the application (referred to as “Interim Rule”), and it provided that this temporary statutory alternative size standard would remain in effect until such time as SBA established a new alternative size standard for the Business Loan Programs through rulemaking. 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(5). Prior to that, SBA had a lower permanent regulatory alternative size standard that applied to the 504 Loan Program, and temporarily applied, for the period beginning on May 5, 2009 and ending on September 30, 2010, to the 7(a) Loan Program. 13 CFR 120.301(b)(2).

On September 29, 2010, SBA issued Information Notice 5000-1175 (available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/bank_5000-1175_0.pdf) providing that, effective September 27, 2010, the new statutory temporary alternative size standard applied to its Business Loan Programs, thereby replacing and superseding the lower existing alternative size standard of $8.5 million in tangible net worth and $3 million in average net income, set forth in 13 CFR 121.301(b)(2). The Information Notice further stated that the new statutory alternative size standard would remain in effect until such time as SBA established a permanent alternative size standard for the Business Loan Programs through rulemaking. The Information Notice also stated that SBA's disaster loan program, surety bond guarantee program, small business investment company program, and small business development and contracting programs, as well as other federal programs utilizing SBA's industry based size standards were not affected by the temporary statutory alternative size standard, and the current standards for those programs in 13 CFR part 121 remained in effect.

Because of the difficulty of obtaining relevant data, SBA has not yet established a new permanent tangible net worth and net income based alternative size standard for its Business Loan Programs, so the Agency continues to use the temporary statutory alternative size standard (referred to in the Jobs Act as the “Interim Rule”) to determine eligibility for a small business concern under SBA's Business Loan Programs, in addition to using the industry based size standards. Under the Interim Rule, a Business Loan Program applicant is eligible either under its industry based size standard or if it meets the temporary statutory alternative size standard of $15 million in tangible net worth and $5 million in average net income.

SBA is statutorily authorized to provide access to capital to small businesses that do not have credit available elsewhere from non-Federal sources on reasonable terms and conditions. Aiming to expand credit opportunities for small businesses under the distressed credit conditions in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 Great Recession, Congress, through the Jobs Act, temporarily increased by statute the level of the existing regulatory alternative size standard for the Business Loan Programs by raising the maximum thresholds of tangible net worth from $8.5 million to $15 million and of average net income from $3 million to $5 million, and it provided that the temporary statutory alternative size standard would remain in effect for the Business Loan Programs until such time as SBA established a new permanent alternative size standard.

A review of SBA's internal data on its Business Loan Programs shows that the temporary statutory alternative size standard may have enabled some small businesses that were not otherwise eligible under their industry based size standards to receive 7(a) or 504 Loans (“Business Loans”). However, SBA's internal data systems for its Business Loan Programs lack the necessary detailed electronic data that would allow for an assessment of the exact impact of the Interim Rule on small business loan applicants. Since the Agency's electronic systems only include data regarding the number of employees and the NAICS industry for loan applicants, but not data regarding average annual receipts, tangible net worth or average net income, SBA is not easily able to calculate the exact number of businesses that qualified under the temporary statutory alternative size standard that otherwise could not have qualified under their industry based size standards. Similarly, due to electronic data limitations, SBA cannot easily identify industries or industry sectors in which the temporary statutory alternative size standard helped small businesses the most or the least in accessing SBA Business Loans.

Again, due to the lack of relevant electronic data, SBA is also not in a position to determine whether the Interim Rule is appropriate under the current economic environment or needs to be modified when SBA establishes a permanent alternative size standard.

In an effort to establish a permanent alternative size standard for its Business Loan Programs as mandated by the Jobs Act, SBA has taken steps to gather the information and data necessary to develop an analysis to support the creation of a new permanent alternative size standard based on tangible net worth and average net income. However, the Economic Census data that SBA examines to establish the industry based size standards does not contain information on tangible net worth or average net income by industry. Furthermore, while SBA collects and maintains limited relevant electronic data on applicants for its Business Loan Programs (such as the number of employees for each loan recipient, but not average annual receipts, tangible net worth, or average net income), SBA's electronic internal data does not show whether an applicant for its Business Loan Programs was determined to be eligible under its industry based size standard or under the alternative size standard. Similarly, the electronic data does not include information on the numbers or amounts of loan approvals that were issued under the industry based size standard or under the temporary statutory alternative size standard.

As such, the only electronic data on size for small business applicants approved for loans through the SBA's Business Loan Programs available for review are the number of employees and the NAICS industry. In an effort to estimate the percentage of loans that were approved under the temporary statutory alternative size standard, SBA examined its electronic internal data on its Business Loan Programs for the three most recent fiscal years (FY 2015 through FY 2017). For this analysis, SBA converted industry based receipts-based size standards to the equivalent number of employees using the receipts-to-employees ratios from the special tabulations of the 2012 Economic Census (http://www.census.gov/econ/census/). If the data showed that the number of employees of a loan recipient exceeded its industry based employee size standard (or employee equivalents in the case of receipts-based size standards), SBA deemed for the purposes of this analysis that the loan was approved under the temporary statutory alternative size standard. Conversely, if the loan recipient's number of employees was equal to or less than the industry based size standard, it was deemed for the purposes of this analysis that the loan could have been approved under the industry based size standard.

Based on the results obtained from this analysis, SBA estimates that about 1.3% of the 207,161 total loan approvals issued during FY 2015-2017 went to firms that exceeded their industry based size standard, thereby implying that these firms were most likely qualified only under the temporary statutory alternative size standard. SBA estimates the total value of these loans to be $3.1 billion, or 3.6% of $86.9 billion in total loans approved during that period. Such a small percentage of loan approvals issued to firms that exceeded their industry size standard (1.3%) suggests that a vast majority of small businesses receiving loans through SBA's Business Loan Programs would have qualified under their industry based size standards and would not be impacted significantly by a modification, if any, to the Interim Rule.

Although useful, the analyzed data is selective in that it includes only those firms that were approved for and received an SBA Business Loan, but not those that applied and were not approved nor those interested in applying in the future. This data does not allow SBA to accurately determine the broader impact of a change to the Interim Rule, nor does it provide the Agency with a robust source of information from which a new permanent alternative size standard can be developed. Furthermore, while SBA has approximated the percentage of all loan approvals issued to small businesses that qualified only under the Interim Rule, it is not possible to determine the precise impact because the available electronic data lacks tangible net worth and average net income data for the impacted population of small businesses. Data on tangible net worth and average net income for the impacted businesses, if available from other sources, may reveal additional insights into the results of SBA's analysis of FY 2015-2017 loan data.

Additionally, SBA is statutorily authorized to make direct loans under the EIDL Program to small businesses that do not have credit available elsewhere and that have suffered a substantial economic injury as a result of a disaster. 15 U.S.C. 636(b)(2). Historically, the size standards applicable to small business concerns that apply for loans under the EIDL Program have been the same industry based size standards applicable to small business applicants for the Business Loan Programs. See, 13 CFR 123.300(b). Although the temporary statutory alternative size standard established by the Jobs Act does not apply to the EIDL Program, SBA is considering applying the new permanent alternative size standard established for the Business Loan Programs to the EIDL Program as an alternative to industry based size standards.

Against the above backdrop, in this ANPRM, SBA seeks comment on the following issues.

1. SBA seeks comment on whether or not the level of the temporary statutory alternative size standard under the Interim Rule (i.e., $15 million in tangible net worth and $5 million in average net income) is appropriate under the current credit environment and as a new permanent alternative size standard. Commenters in support of the level in the Interim Rule should provide justification, along with supporting data and analysis to support their position. Similarly, commenters who believe the level established in the Interim Rule is not appropriate as a permanent alternative size standard should suggest, along with supporting data and analysis, a different alternative size standard which they believe would be more appropriate. The suggested alternative size standard must be based on tangible net worth and average net income as required by section 3(a)(5) of the Small Business Act. 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(5).

2. SBA seeks comment on the impact of using an alternative size standard on small businesses seeking loans through its Business Loan Programs. Specifically, SBA welcomes information on industries/sectors where small businesses benefit the most or do not benefit at all from the use of an alternative size standard. Similarly, SBA is also looking for data on the number of businesses approved for SBA's Business Loans under the temporary statutory alternative size standard that otherwise could not have been approved under their industry based size standards.

3. SBA invites suggestions on sources of relevant data and information, especially tangible net worth and average net income of applicants to SBA's Business Loan Programs, that SBA can evaluate to assess the impact of the Interim Rule on small businesses and use in developing a new permanent alternative size standard and in estimating the impact of the new permanent alternative size standard.

4. SBA invites comments from interested parties on the proposal to apply the same new permanent alternative size standard established for the Business Loan Programs to the EIDL Program as an alternative to industry based size standards.

5. SBA also seeks comment on how the Interim Rule has affected the processes used by lenders participating in the Business Loan Programs and what effects a permanent alternative size standard would have on application processes and processing times.

6. SBA invites comment on the effects of the Interim Rule on conventional small business lending. Specifically, SBA welcomes input on whether, and to what extent, if any, SBA Business Loans approved under the Interim Rule have substituted for or displaced directly or indirectly conventional small business lending, or whether such SBA Business Loans played more of a supplementary role in conventional small business lending activity.

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; Product Identifier 2017-NM-169-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0223R1, dated December 15, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0166.

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017. The service information describes preventive maintenance requirements and includes updated limitations, tasks, thresholds and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

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

Similar to the MCAI, this proposed AD would not supersede AD 2000-23-26, Amendment 39-11999 (65 FR 70775, November 28, 2000) (“AD 2000-23-26”), or AD 2008-04-19 R1, Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713, November 3, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-19 R1”). Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations that are new or more restrictive than those required by AD 2000-23-26 and AD 2008-04-19 R1. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all the requirements of AD 2000-23-26 and AD 2008-04-19 R1.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace in Wrightstown, NJ to support IFR operations in the area.

Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2017-1188 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-23) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1188; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-23.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

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

The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface by updating the names of McGuire Field (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), (formerly McGuire AFB (Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), and Ocean County Airport, (formerly Robert J. Miller Airpark), Wrightstown, NJ. These changes would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations in the area. In addition, this action would update the geographic coordinates of Ocean County Airport, Lakehurst (Navy) TACAN, and Colts Neck VOR/DME. These changes would bring current the FAA's aeronautical database.

Finally, for Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, an editorial change would be made removing the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation to comply with FAA Order 7499.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

The current procedures used by OFAC pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of Pub. L. 106-387, 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) (the “Act”) for authorizing the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Iran are set forth in 31 CFR 560.530 through 560.533. Effective October 12, 2017, sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13067 of November 3, 1997 and all of E.O. 13412 of October 13, 2006 were revoked, pursuant to E.O. 13761 of January 13, 2017, as amended by E.O. 13804 of July 11, 2017. As a result of the revocation of these sanctions provisions, effective October 12, 2017, U.S. persons are no longer prohibited from engaging in transactions that were previously prohibited under the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 538. However, pursuant to the Act, an OFAC license is still required for exports and reexports to the Government of Sudan or any other entity in Sudan of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices as a result of Sudan's inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. These exports and reexports are generally licensed by OFAC. Under the provisions of section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must submit a biennial report to the Congress on the operation, during the preceding two-year period, of the licensing procedures required by section 906 of the Act for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran. This report is to include:

(1) The number and types of licenses applied for;

(2) The number and types of licenses approved;

(3) The average amount of time elapsed from the date of filing of a license application until the date of its approval;

(4) The extent to which the licensing procedures were effectively implemented; and

(5) A description of comments received from interested parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures were effective, after holding a public 30-day comment period.

This document solicits comments from interested parties regarding the effectiveness of OFAC's licensing procedures for the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Sudan and Iran for the time period of October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2016. Interested parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, OFAC requires written comments. All comments received on or before April 23, 2018 will be considered by OFAC in developing the report to the Congress. Consideration of comments received after the end of the comment period cannot be assured.

All comments made will be a matter of public record. OFAC will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the comments be treated confidentially because of their business proprietary nature or for any other reason; OFAC will not consider them and will return such comments when submitted by regular mail to the person submitting the comments.

Copies of past biennial reports may be obtained from OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/lic-agmed-index.aspx). Written requests may be sent to: Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Freedman's Bank Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220, Attn: Assistant Director for Licensing.

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

On November 3, 2015 (80 FR 67647), the EPA finalized, among other things, its approval of revisions to Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title 252 Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Chapter 100 Air Pollution Control (OAC:252:100), Subchapter 17 Incinerators, Subchapter 25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The submittal dated February 14, 2017 (February 14, 2017 Submittal, or Submittal) which is the subject of this proposed action includes revisions to Subchapters 2 Incorporation by Reference, 5 Registration, Emission Inventory and Annual Operating Fees, 13 Open Burning, 17 Incinerators, 25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, 31 Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards, Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Appendix Q Incorporation by Reference of OAC:252:100. The Submittal covers the annual updates for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

The criteria used to evaluate these SIP revisions are found primarily in section 110 of the Act. Section 110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to the EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing and also requires that the EPA not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. See the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in conjunction with this action for more information.

Subchapters 2, 5, and Appendix Q of the Submittal are air permit-related provisions of the Oklahoma SIP, and we are not acting upon these provisions in this rulemaking action. The EPA plans to act on these provisions separately in a future rulemaking action.

In this action, we are proposing to approve revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 13, 17, 25, 31, Appendix E, and Appendix F, as contained in the Submittal. Appendices E and F adopt primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), respectively.

OAC 252:100, Subchapter 13 imposes requirements for controlling open burning of refuse and other combustible materials. It defines “air curtain incinerator” or “air curtain destructor” as an incineration unit that operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open, integrated combustion chamber (fire box) or open pit or trench (trench burner) in which combustion occurs.

The Subchapter 13 revisions limit allowed open burning when an Ozone or PM Watch has been declared for the day of the burn in an area. This provision is intended to assist with attaining and maintaining the Ozone and PM NAAQS. Section OAC 252:100-13-8 concerns the use of air curtain incinerators and prohibits the owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator from accepting to burn any material owned by other persons and transporting any material to the property where the air curtain incinerator is located unless the material is 100 percent wood waste, 100 percent clean lumber, or 100 percent mixture of wood waste and clean lumber. This provision makes the open burning activities more stringent and assists with compliance determinations. Revisions to OAC 252:100-13-8 also mandate compliance with applicable federal incineration requirements of 40 CFR part 60. See the TSD prepared in conjunction with this rulemaking action for more information.

Since the record indicates that the submitted revisions to Subchapter 13 make applicability determinations clearer and improves compliance, we find that the Oklahoma SIP has not been relaxed and that the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act have been satisfied. See the TSD in the docket for this action. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 13 into the Oklahoma SIP.

OAC 252:100, Subchapter 17 specifies design and operating requirements and establishes emission limitations for incinerators and municipal waste combustors. Submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part 3 General Purpose Incinerators and Part 9 Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units adjust enforceable requirements and compliance dates consistent with revisions to federal requirements dated February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9112). More specifically, the submitted revisions incorporate changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, Model Rule, Sections 60.2575 through 60.2875, including Tables 1 through 9. The State has adopted federal requirements for incinerators through an Incorporation By Reference (IBR) mechanism. See 64 FR 57392, and 70 FR 73595. The proposed revisions will render Subchapter 17 consistent with federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 17 into the Oklahoma SIP.

OAC 252:100, Subchapter 25 concerns visible emissions and particulates and its purpose is to control visible emissions and particulate matter from the operation of specified air contaminant sources. More specifically, submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-25-5 require owners or operators of listed stationary sources install, calibrate, operate, and maintain all monitoring equipment for continuously monitoring opacity; it also requires compliance with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P. The proposed revisions will render Subchapter 25 consistent with federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 25 into Oklahoma SIP.

ODEQ revised OAC 252:100, Subchapter 31 in 2002, 2003 (twice), 2012, and 2013. As a part of our review of the February 14, 2017 Submittal, each one of these five revisions has been evaluated in the TSD associated with this action.

In particular, Subchapter 252:100:31 concerns control of emission of sulfur compounds and its purpose is control emissions of sulfur compounds from stationary sources. Revisions to 252:100:31-25(3) state that required SO2 emissions monitoring systems must comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P. As a result, the proposed revisions will be consistent with federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. In addition, by replacing State's outdated 24-hour and annual SO2 standards with the more stringent up-to-date short term federal 2010 1-Hour SO2 standard (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), Subchapter 31 will provide for even better protection of public health and environment and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 31 into the Oklahoma SIP.

OAC 252:100, Appendix E concerns the primary NAAQS set forth to provide public health protection, including protecting the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. The submitted revision to Appendix E adopts the primary 2015 8-Hour ozone NAAQS and is consistent with 40 CFR 50.19, making the SIP more stringent. Also, see https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to OAC 252:100, Appendix E into the Oklahoma SIP. See the TSD for more information.

OAC 252:100, Appendix F concerns the secondary NAAQS set forth to provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The submitted revision to Appendix F concerns the secondary 2015 8-Hour ozone NAAQS and is consistent with 40 CFR 50.19, making the SIP more stringent. Also, see https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to OAC 252:100, Appendix F into the Oklahoma SIP.

We are proposing to approve revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 13, 17, 25, 31, Appendix E, and Appendix F, as submitted to us by a letter dated February 14, 2017 (Submittal). The Submittal covers Oklahoma's updates for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with Section 110 of the Act.

In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Oklahoma's regulations, as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

Under the 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 Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action II. Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan Submittal for the Warren Area III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Attainment Plan for the Warren Area A. Pollutants Addressed B. Emissions Inventory Requirements C. Air Quality Modeling D. RACM/RACT E. RFP Plan F. Contingency Measures G. New Source Review IV. EPA's Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject to certain conditions.1 EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which became effective on October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011, where there were sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation.2

Effective on October 4, 2013, the Warren Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source United Refining and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 42-123-0004). The October 4, 2013 final designation triggered a requirement for Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA section 172(b).

For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent letter dated October 5, 2017, to Pennsylvania finding the submittal complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of Pennsylvania's having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggers a requirement that EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that time, the state has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP obligation will not apply if EPA makes final the approval action proposed here by April 18, 2018.

Attainment plans must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA. On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the statutory requirements for SO2 attainment plans.3 In this guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); an attainment demonstration that includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP (172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the affected area (172(c)(9)).

In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy for the primary SO2 source within the nonattainment areas constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy for the primary SO2 source (United Refining), which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018, attainment date; requirements for RFP toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency measures; the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NSR program meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the request that emission limitations and compliance parameters for United Refining be incorporated into the SIP.

Consistent with CAA requirements (see section 172), an attainment demonstration for an SO2 nonattainment area must include a showing that the area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reductions analyses on which the state has based its projected attainment. EPA is proposing to conclude that the attainment plan submitted by Pennsylvania meets all applicable requirements of the CAA, and EPA is proposing to approve the plan submitted by Pennsylvania to ensure ongoing attainment in the Warren Area.

Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the area within the portion of Warren County (Conewango Township, Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) that is designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider for the SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant that arises from direct emissions, and therefore concentrations are highest relatively close to the sources and much lower at greater distances due to dispersion. Thus, SO2 concentration patterns resemble those of other directly emitted pollutants like lead, and differ from those of photochemically-formed (secondary) pollutants such as ozone. Pennsylvania's attainment plan appropriately considered SO2 emissions for the Indiana Area.

States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop comprehensive, accurate and current emissions inventories of all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the nonattainment area. These inventories provide detailed accounting of all emissions and emissions sources by precursor or pollutant. In addition, inventories are used in air quality modeling to demonstrate that attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides that the emissions inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.4

For the base year inventory of actual emissions, a “comprehensive, accurate and current” inventory can be represented by a year that contributed to the three-year design value used for the original nonattainment designation. The 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance notes that the base year inventory should include all sources of SO2 in the nonattainment area as well as any sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area. Pennsylvania appropriately elected to use 2011 as the base year. Actual emissions from all the sources of SO2 in the Warren Area were reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions inventory requirement. The primary SO2-emitting point source located within the Warren Area is United Refining, a petroleum refinery. United Refining consists of 29 main SO2 emitters, which include boilers, heaters, reboilers, compressors, and flares. More information on the emissions inventory for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, submittal as well as EPA's emissions inventory Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and which provides EPA's analysis of the emissions inventory.

Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tons per year (tpy), in the Warren Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source category. The point source category includes all sources within the nonattainment area.

EPA has evaluated Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Warren Area and has made the determination that this inventory was developed in a manner consistent with EPA's guidance. Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Warren Area.

The attainment demonstration also provides for a projected attainment year inventory that includes estimated emissions for all emission sources of SO2 which are determined to impact the nonattainment area for the year in which the area is expected to attain the NAAQS. Pennsylvania provided a 2018 projected emissions inventory for all known sources included in the 2011 base year inventory. The projected 2018 emissions are shown in Table 2. Pennsylvania's submittal asserts that the SO2 emissions are expected to decrease by approximately 436 tons, or 40%, by 2018 from the 2011 base year. More information on the projected emissions for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, submittal, and EPA's analysis of the emissions inventories can be found in EPA's emissions inventory TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. EPA proposes to approve the 2011 base year inventory and the 2018 projected inventory as they meet CAA requirements.

The SO2 attainment demonstration provides an air quality dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate that control strategies chosen to reduce SO2 source emissions will bring the Area into attainment by the statutory attainment date of October 4, 2018. The modeling analysis, following recommendations outlined in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (EPA's Modeling Guidance), is used for the attainment demonstration to assess the control strategy for a nonattainment area and establish emission limits that will provide for attainment. The analysis requires five years of meteorological data to simulate the dispersion of pollutant plumes from multiple point, area, or volume sources across the averaging times of interest. The modeling demonstration typically also relies on maximum allowable emissions from sources in the nonattainment area. Though the actual emissions are likely to be below the allowable emissions, sources have the ability to run at higher production rates or optimize controls such that emissions approach the allowable emissions limits. A modeling analysis that provides for attainment under all scenarios of operation for each source must therefore consider the worst case scenario of both the meteorology (e.g. predominant wind directions, stagnation, etc.) and the maximum allowable emissions.

PADEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's Modeling Guidance and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, and was prepared using EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD). A more detailed discussion of PADEP's modeling analysis for the Warren Area can be found in Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal, and EPA's analysis of the modeling is discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578.

EPA has reviewed the modeling that Pennsylvania submitted to support the attainment demonstration for the Warren Area and has determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements, Appendix W, and EPA's guidance for SO2 attainment demonstration modeling. The modeling properly characterized source limits, local meteorological data, background concentrations, and provided an adequate model receptor grid to capture maximum modeled concentrations. Using the EPA conversion factor for the SO2 NAAQS, the final modeled design value for the Warren Area is less than 75 ppb.5 Therefore, EPA is proposing to determine that the analysis demonstrates that the source limits used in the modeling demonstration comply with the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA's analysis of the modeling is discussed in more detail in EPA's modeling TSD, which can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. EPA proposes to conclude that the modeling provided in the attainment plan shows that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by the attainment date.

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (i.e., RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under section 172, as measures that a state determines to be both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable “for existing sources in the area.”

Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal discusses federal and state measures that will provide emission reductions leading to attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. With regards to state rules, Pennsylvania cites to its low sulfur fuel rules, which were SIP-approved on July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39330). Pennsylvania's low sulfur fuel oil provisions apply to refineries, pipelines, terminals, retail outlet fuel storage facilities, commercial and industrial facilities, and facilities with unit burning regulated fuel oil to produce electricity and for domestic home heaters. These low sulfur fuel oil rules reduce the amount of sulfur in fuel oils used in combustion units, thereby reducing SO2 emissions and the formation of sulfates that cause decreased visibility. In terms of federal measures, Pennsylvania explains that 19 sources at United Refining are required to comply with the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), as well as four sources that are required to comply with 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUU, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Petroleum Refineries (the Refinery MACT 2). EPA notes that although Pennsylvania incorporates by reference the NESHAP and MACT, they are not in the Pennsylvania SIP.

Pennsylvania's submittal discusses that enforceable emission changes have been in place at United Refining since 2015 that reduce the SO2 emissions from the facility. The facility switched from high sulfur (2.8% sulfur) fuel oil to a lower sulfur fuel oil (0.5% sulfur) in 11 combustion units and heaters. Also, in July 2015, United Refining increased the amount of the flue gas desulfurization additive (De-Sox) used for one of the emitting source's (Source ID 101A) catalyst, which prevents the formation of SO2 during the catalyst regeneration process.

Based on the modeling analysis discussed in section IV.C. Air Quality Modeling, in order to ensure that the Warren Area demonstrates attainment with the SO2 NAAQS, emission limits established in a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) (see Appendix B of the September 29, 2017 submittal) between PADEP and United Refining, will be used to control SO2 emissions from United Refining. The collective emission limits and related compliance parameters have been proposed for incorporation into the SIP to make these changes federally enforceable. The compliance parameters include United Refining burning certain fuel types; monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting; conducting emission testing; using De-Sox additive where appropriate; and using continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). PADEP asserts that this proposed control strategy lowers the modeled SO2 impacts from United Refining and is sufficient for the Warren Area to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The new emission limits for each of the SO2-emitting sources at United Refining are listed in Table 3. PADEP affirms that the implementation of new emission limits and corresponding compliance parameters serve as RACM/RACT at United Refining, and will enable the Warren Area to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS.

EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the proposed SO2 control strategy at United Refining constitutes RACM/RACT for that source in the Warren Area based on the modeling analysis previously described. The Area is projected to begin showing attaining monitoring values for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Furthermore, PADEP requests that the emission limits listed in Table 3 and corresponding compliance parameters found in the unredacted portions of the COA for United Refining will become permanent and enforceable SIP measures to meet the requirements of the CAA. EPA, therefore, proposes to approve Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017, SIP submittal as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements of section 172(c) of the CAA.

Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan include a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress (i.e., RFP) for meeting air quality standards will be achieved through generally linear incremental improvement in air quality. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part (part D) or may reasonably be required by EPA for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.” As stated originally in the 1994 SO2 Guidelines Document 6 and repeated in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA continues to believe that this definition is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted from numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between particular sources and ambient air quality are not directly quantified. In such cases, emissions reductions may be required from various types and locations of sources. The relationship between SO2 and sources is much more defined, and usually there is a single step between pre-control nonattainment and post-control attainment. Therefore, EPA interpreted RFP for SO2 as adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule in both the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. The control measures for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS included in Pennsylvania's submittal have been modeled to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The permits and the adoption of specific emission limits and compliance parameters require these control measures and resulting emission reductions to be achieved as expeditiously as practicable. As a result, based on air quality modeling reviewed by EPA, this is projected to yield a sufficient reduction in SO2 emissions from United Refining resulting in modeled attainment of the SO2 NAAQS for the Warren Area. Therefore, EPA has determined that PADEP's SO2 attainment plan fulfills the RFP requirements for the Warren Area. EPA does not anticipate future nonattainment, or that the Area will not meet the October 4, 2018, attainment date. EPA proposes to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan with respect to the RFP requirements.

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures are required as additional measures to be implemented in the event that an area fails to meet the RFP requirements or fails to attain the standard by its attainment date. These measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to meet its attainment date, and should contain trigger mechanisms and an implementation schedule. However, SO2 presents special considerations. As stated in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520) and in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA concluded that because of the quantifiable relationship between SO2 sources and control measures, it is appropriate that state agencies develop a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and undertake an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement.

The United Refining COA (see Appendix B of the September 29, 2017 submittal) contains the following measures that are designed to keep the Warren Area from triggering an exceedance or violation of the SO2 NAAQS: (1) If the SO2 emissions from the FCC Unit (Source ID 101A) exceeds the validated lbs/hr permitted emission limit listed in Table 3, the facility will perform an audit of the unit's SO2 control additive system, which will include injection of the proper amount of De-SOx additive, and within 45 days of the exceedance, submit a report to PADEP; (2) If the Warren Overlook SO2 ambient air quality monitor (ID 42-123-0005) located within the nonattainment area measures a third daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration for any hour greater than 75 parts per billion (ppb) within a calendar year (if this occurs on two days back-to-back, it will be counted as one; if there are three days in a row, it will be counted as two), after verification and notification by PADEP, within 90 calendar days, United Refining must submit an investigative report to PADEP. If the report concludes that SO2 emissions from one or more SO2-emitting sources at the facility caused an exceedance, the report must include proposed changes in the facility operations that would be needed in order to avoid a violation of the SO2 NAAQS; (3) If PADEP identifies a daily maximum SO2 concentration exceeding 75 ppb at a PADEP-operated SO2 ambient air quality monitor in the Warren Area, within five days, PADEP will contact United Refining to trigger the implementation of the daily exceedance report contingency measure described above in (2); (4) Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) authorizes PADEP to take any action it deems necessary or proper for the effective enforcement of APCA and the rules and regulations promulgated under APCA. Such actions include the issuance of orders and the assessment of civil penalties.

EPA is proposing to find that Pennsylvania's September 29, 2017 submittal includes sufficient measures to expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for aggressive follow-up including enforcement measures within PADEP's authority as necessary. Therefore, EPA proposes that the contingency measures submitted by Pennsylvania follow the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and meet the section 172(c)(9) requirements.

Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a fully implemented nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program for criteria pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). These rules provide for appropriate new source review as required by CAA sections 175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area without need for modification of the approved rules. Therefore, EPA concludes that the Pennsylvania SIP meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) for this Area.

EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision for the Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017 for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Warren Area, and is proposing that the Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NSR for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve into the Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters established for the SO2 source impacting the Warren Area.

EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's SO2 attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Warren County meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and comports with EPA's recommendations discussed in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the Warren Area as submitted on September 29, 2017. EPA's analysis for this proposed action is discussed in Section IV of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Final approval of this SIP submittal will remove EPA's duty to promulgate and implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c).

In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the portions of the Consent Order and Agreement entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on September 29, 2017, that are not redacted. This includes emission limits and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 CAA; and

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

In addition, this proposed rule, concerning the SO2 attainment plan for the Warren nonattainment area in Pennsylvania, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Below is a short discussion of the background of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS addressed in this notice. For more information, please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) and EPA website http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.

EPA has regulated PM since 1971, when we published the first NAAQS for PM (36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971). Most recently, by notice dated January 15, 2013, following a periodic review of the NAAQS for PM2.5, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 µg/m3 and retained the secondary PM2.5 annual standard of 15 µg/m3 as well as the 24-hour PM2.5 primary and secondary standards of 35 µg/m3 (78 FR 3086, December 14, 2012). The primary NAAQS is designed to protect human health, and the secondary NAAQS is designed to protect the public welfare.

Each state must submit an i-SIP within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP must meet. On September 13, 2013, the EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for NAAQS.1 On December 1, 2015, the Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted an i-SIP revision to address the revised NAAQS for 2012 PM2.5.2

Interested parties may participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, opinions, recommendations, and data. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you do not wish to be disclosed. You may submit comments on any topic related to this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-596), the Organic Act of 1910 (Pub. L. 179), and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 91-173), NIOSH is authorized to approve respiratory equipment and to conduct scientific investigations or tests concerning the safety and health of miners and other workers.

The provisions in 42 CFR 84.310 govern the procedures NIOSH follows in conducting post-approval testing of closed-circuit escape respirators (CCERs) sold and distributed to employees. The post-approval testing program, known as the long-term field evaluation (LTFE) program, is designed to ensure the CCERs' continued safety and viability as emergency life support after having been exposed to harsh environments such as those found in mining. According to the existing language in § 84.310(c), post-approval testing is conducted pursuant to the methods promulgated in §§ 84.303 through 84.305, which establish general testing conditions and requirements, including capacity and performance testing.

In a rulemaking conducted in March 2012 to update the standards for the testing of CCERs,1 NIOSH did not specify that neither the human subject trials specified in §§ 84.303-84.305, nor the environmental conditioning specified in § 84.305, would be conducted on post-market respirators (devices sold and distributed to employees) except at NIOSH's discretion. A clarification about human subject testing was issued in a September 2016 policy statement.2

NIOSH requires human subject testing only when new or modified devices are presented for approval evaluation. The human subject trials are included as a final check of functionality in the as-used (worn by a human being) mode of operation. The inclusion of human subject tests addresses the goal of ensuring that no aspect of a design found to be in compliance with the bench tests specified in 42 CFR part 84 is compromised by, or fails to adequately accommodate, the needs of the human/device interaction. Once established, there is no need to re-evaluate the apparatus with the aid of human subjects unless the design is changed.

Bench testing, using a breathing and metabolic simulator, eliminates the potential for human subjects to suffer adverse effects from defective CCERs. A post-market unit that does not function in accordance with the NIOSH approval requirements after potential damage from exposure to the deployment environment could pose a health risk to a human test subject. Further, requiring human subject testing constrains the number of fielded units NIOSH is able to test, due to the logistical complexity and higher cost of hiring human subjects.3

Environmental treatments are not conducted on post-market devices, because the intent of the post-market evaluation is to assess the actual effects of the deployed environment on respirators used in the field. The environmental treatments specified in NIOSH regulations involve exposing respirators to realistically harsh conditions representative of industrial environments in order to assess that they are reasonably robust for their intended service. The treatments are conducted only during the evaluation of a new or modified respirator design submitted to NIOSH for approval.

The proposed changes to 42 CFR 84.310(c) would reflect current NIOSH policy by clarifying that neither human subject testing nor environmental testing are required to be routinely conducted on respirators obtained by the LTFE program. The revision would allow NIOSH to conduct human subject testing or environmental treatments in the LTFE program only when NIOSH deems those tests to be necessary.

The language in existing paragraph (d) would be unchanged, and moved into a new paragraph (c)(2). The remainder of the paragraphs in § 84.310 would be redesignated accordingly.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This proposed rule has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. The revision proposed in this notice would allow NIOSH the discretion to determine whether to conduct human subject tests or environmental treatments on fielded respirators chosen for post-approval testing. The current language requires NIOSH to conduct those tests.

Because this proposed rule is a technical correction and would not affect the cost of the activities authorized by 42 CFR 84.310(c), HHS has not prepared an economic analysis. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking.

Executive Order 13771 requires executive departments and agencies to eliminate at least two existing regulations for every new significant regulation that imposes costs. Because OMB has determined that this rulemaking is not significant, pursuant to E.O. 12866, and because it does not impose costs, OMB has determined that this rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771. Thus it has not been reviewed by OMB.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations. Because no substantive changes are being made to 42 CFR 84.310(c) as a result of this action, HHS certifies that this proposed rule has “no significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities” within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires an agency to invite public comment on, and to obtain OMB approval of, any regulation that requires 10 or more people to report information to the agency or to keep certain records. In accordance with section 3507(d) of the PRA, HHS has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act does apply to information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this rule. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements under OMB Control Number 0920-0109, Information Collection Provisions in 42 CFR part 84—Tests and Requirements for Certification and Approval of Respiratory Protective Devices (expiration date 11/30/2017). NIOSH is currently seeking approval for a renewal of the information collection; a 30-day notice was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2018 (83 FR 7188). The proposed amendments in this rulemaking would not impact the collection of data.

As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), HHS will report the promulgation of this rule to Congress prior to its effective date.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector “other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.” For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this proposed rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased annual expenditures in excess of $100 million by State, local or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.

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

In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this proposed rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no environmental health and safety effect on children.

In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this proposed rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.

Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the proposed rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 42 CFR 84.310 as follows:

The transportation sector is undergoing a potentially revolutionary period, as tasks traditionally performed by humans only are increasingly being done, whether in testing or in actual integration, by automated technologies. Most prominently, “Automated Driving Systems” (ADS) have shown the capacity to drive and operate motor vehicles, including commercial motor vehicles, as safely and efficiently as humans, if not more so. Similar technological developments are also occurring in rail.

DOT, including PHMSA, strongly encourages the safe development, testing, and integration of these automated technologies, including the potential for these technologies to be used in hazardous materials transportation. Although an exciting and important innovation in transportation history, the emergence of surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them may create unique and unforeseen challenges for hazardous materials transportation. The safe transportation of hazardous materials remains PHMSA's top priority, and as the development, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles into our transportation system continues, PHMSA must ensure the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) framework sufficiently takes into account these new technological innovations.

The purpose of this request for information is to obtain public comment on how the development of automated technologies may impact the HMR, and on the information PHMSA should consider when determining how to best ensure the HMR adequately account for surface automated vehicles.1 In anticipation of the role surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them may play on transportation, the movement of freight, and commerce, PHMSA requests comments from the public and interested stakeholders—including entities engaged in the development, testing, and integration of these technologies—on the potential future incompatibilities between the hazardous materials transportation requirements in the HMR and a surface transportation system that incorporates automated vehicles.

PHMSA is an operating administration within DOT established in 2004 by the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Pub. L. 108-426). PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials that are essential to our daily lives. To achieve this mission, PHMSA establishes national policy, sets and enforces standards, educates, and conducts research to prevent hazardous materials incidents—often collaborating closely with other Federal agencies, operating administrations, and transportation modes.

Federal hazardous materials law authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.” 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated this authority to PHMSA in 49 CFR 1.97(b). The HMR are designed to achieve three primary goals: (1) Help ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely and securely during transportation; (2) provide effective communication to transportation workers and emergency responders of the hazards of the materials being transported; and (3) minimize the consequences of an accident or incident should one occur. The hazardous materials regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying safety or security hazards and reducing the probability and consequences of a hazardous material release.

Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized into hazard classes and packing groups based on analysis of and experience with the risks they present during transportation. The HMR: (1) Specify appropriate packaging and handling requirements for hazardous materials based on this classification and require a shipper to communicate the material's hazards through the use of shipping papers, package marking and labeling, and vehicle placarding; (2) require shippers to provide emergency response information applicable to the specific hazard or hazards of the material being transported; and (3) mandate training requirements for persons who prepare hazardous materials for shipment or transport hazardous materials in commerce. The HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each mode of transportation.

As such, PHMSA—in continued collaboration with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration—seeks information regarding the design, development, and potential use of automated transportation systems to safely transport hazardous materials by surface mode in compliance with the HMR, and to identify requirements within the HMR which may impede the integration of this technology.

PHMSA safely incorporates technological innovation through its special permit (SP) program. SPs set forth alternative requirements—or a variance—to the requirements in the HMR in a manner that achieves an equivalent level of safety to that required under the regulations, or if a required safety level does not exist, that is consistent with the public interest. PHMSA's Approvals and Permits Division is responsible for the issuance of DOT SPs. Specifically, SPs are issued by PHMSA under 49 CFR part 107, subpart B.

The HMR often provide performance-based standards and, as such, provide the regulated community with some flexibility in meeting safety requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be anticipated and covered under the regulations. The hazardous materials community is at the cutting edge of development of new materials, technologies, and innovative ways of moving hazardous materials. Innovation strengthens our economy, and new technologies and operational techniques may enhance safety. Thus, SPs provide a mechanism for testing and using new technologies, promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global competitiveness without compromising safety. SPs enable the hazardous materials industry to safely, quickly, and effectively integrate new products and technologies into production and the transportation stream.

PHMSA requests information related to the development and potential use of surface automated vehicles and the technologies that support them in hazardous materials transportation by highway or rail. For additional background on ADS for motor vehicles, PHMSA notes that DOT and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released guidance in the Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety, 2 on September 12, 2017. Further, NHTSA issued a notice [September 15, 2017; 82 FR 43321] making the public aware of the guidance and seeking comment. This voluntary guidance, among other things, describes the levels of “Automated Driving Systems” for on-road motor vehicles developed by SAE International (see SAE J3016, September 2016) and adopted by DOT.

The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on “who does what, when.” Generally:

• At SAE Level 0, the driver does everything.

• At SAE Level 1, an automated system on the vehicle can sometimes assist the driver conduct some parts of the driving task.

• At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can actually conduct some parts of the driving task, while the driver continues to monitor the driving environment and performs the rest of the driving task.

• At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment in some instances, but the driver must be ready to take back control when the automated system requests.

• At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the driver need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions.

• At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a driver could perform them.

PHMSA requests comments on the implications of the development, testing, and integration of automated technologies for surface modes (i.e., highway and rail) on both the HMR and the general transport of hazardous materials.

Specifically, PHMSA asks:

1. What are the safety, regulatory, and policy implications of the design, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles on the requirements in the HMR? Please include any potential solutions PHMSA should consider.

2. What are potential regulatory incompatibilities between the HMR and a future surface transportation system that incorporates automated vehicles? Specific HMR areas could include but are not limited to:

3. Are there specific HMR requirements that would need modifications to become performance-based standards that can accommodate an automated vehicle operating in a surface transportation system?

4. What automated surface transportation technologies are under development that are expected to be relevant to the safe transport of hazardous materials, and how might they be used in a surface transportation system?

5. Under what circumstances do freight operators envision the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce using surface automated vehicles within the next 10 years?

(a) To what extent do the HMR restrict the use of surface automated vehicles in the transportation of hazardous materials in non-bulk packaging in parcel delivery and less-than-truckload freight shipments by commercial motor vehicles?

(b) To what extent do the HMR restrict the use of surface automated vehicles in the transportation of hazardous materials in bulk packaging by rail and commercial motor vehicles?

6. What issues do automated technologies raise in hazardous materials surface transportation that are not present for human drivers or operators that PHMSA should address?

7. Do HMR requirements that relate to the operation of surface automated vehicles carrying hazardous materials present different challenges than those that relate to ancillary tasks, such as inspections and packaging requirements?

8. What solutions could PHMSA consider to address potential future regulatory incompatibilities between the HMR and surface automated vehicle technologies?

9. What should PHMSA consider when reviewing applications for special permits seeking regulatory flexibility to allow for the transport of hazardous materials using automated technologies for surface modes?

10. When considering long-term solutions to challenges the HMR may present to the development, testing, and integration of surface automated vehicles, what information and other factors should PHMSA consider?

11. What should PHMSA consider when developing future policy, guidance, and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials in surface transportation systems?

This action would implement the management measures in Framework Adjustment 57 (Framework 57) to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The New England Fishery Management Council deemed the proposed regulations necessary to implement Framework 57 in a March 14, 2018, letter from Council Chairman Dr. John Quinn to Regional Administrator Michael Pentony. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), we are required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures that the Council proposes based only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Otherwise, we must defer to the Council's policy choices. We are seeking comments on the Council's proposed measures in Framework 57 and whether they are consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Through Framework 57, the Council proposes to:

• Set fishing year 2018 shared U.S./Canada quotas for Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder and Eastern GB cod and haddock;

• Set 2018-2020 specifications for 20 groundfish stocks;

• Revise the common pool trimester total allowable catch (TAC) allocations for several stocks;

• Revise accountability measures (AM) for Atlantic halibut for vessels issued any Federal permit;

• Revise AMs for southern windowpane flounder for non-groundfish trawl vessels;

• Revise the trigger for the scallop fishery's AM for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder; and

• Grant the Regional Administrator authority to adjust recreational measures for GB cod.

This action also proposes a number of other measures that are not part of Framework 57, but that may be, or are required to be, considered and implemented under our authority specified in the FMP. We are proposing these measures in conjunction with the Framework 57 proposed measures for expediency purposes, and because these measures are related to the catch limits proposed as part of Framework 57. The additional measures proposed in this action are listed below:

• Management measures for the common pool fishery—this action proposes fishing year 2018 trip limits for the common pool fishery.

• Adjustments for fishing year 2016 catch overages—this action would reduce the 2018 allocation of GB cod, Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, and witch flounder due to catch limit overages that occurred in fishing year 2016.

• Other regulatory corrections—we propose one administrative correction to address a minor rounding error in the regulations for the common pool trimester TACs. This proposed correction is described in the section “12. Regulatory Corrections.”

Eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder are jointly managed with Canada under the United States/Canada Resource Sharing Understanding. The Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) is a government-industry committee made up of representatives from the United States and Canada. For historical information about the TMGC see: http://www.bio.gc.ca/info/intercol/tmgc-cogst/index-en.php. Each year, the TMGC recommends a shared quota for each stock based on the most recent stock information and the TMGC's harvest strategy. The TMGC's harvest strategy for setting catch levels is to maintain a low to neutral risk (less than 50 percent) of exceeding the fishing mortality limit for each stock. The harvest strategy also specifies that when stock conditions are poor, fishing mortality should be further reduced to promote stock rebuilding. The shared quotas are allocated between the United States and Canada based on a formula that considers historical catch (10-percent weighting) and the current resource distribution (90-percent weighting).

For GB yellowtail flounder, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) also recommends an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the stock, which is typically used to inform the U.S. TMGC's discussions with Canada for the annual shared quota. Although the stock is jointly managed with Canada, and the TMGC recommends annual shared quotas, the Council may not set catch limits that would exceed the SSC's recommendation. The SSC does not recommend ABCs for eastern GB cod and haddock because they are management units of the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The SSC recommends overall ABCs for the total GB cod and haddock stocks. The shared U.S./Canada quota for eastern GB cod and haddock is included in these overall ABCs, and must be consistent with the SSC's recommendation for the total GB stocks.

The Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee conducted assessments for the three-transboundary stocks in July 2017, and detailed summaries of these assessments can be found at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/trac/. The TMGC met in September 2017 to recommend shared quotas for 2018 based on the updated assessments, and the Council adopted the TMGC's recommendations in Framework 57. The proposed 2018 shared U.S./Canada quotas, and each country's allocation, are listed in Table 1.

The Council's proposed 2018 U.S. quota for eastern GB haddock would be a 47-percent decrease compared to 2017. This decrease is due to a decrease in biomass and a reduction in the portion of the shared quota that is allocated to the United States. The Council's proposed U.S. quota for eastern GB cod and GB yellowtail flounder would be a 76-percent and a 3-percent increase, respectively, compared to 2017, which are a result of increases in survey biomass and the portions of the shared quotas allocated to the United States. For a more detailed discussion of the TMGC's 2018 catch advice, see the TMGC's guidance document at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/multispecies/announcements/2017tmgcguiddoc.pdf.

The regulations implementing the U.S./Canada Resource Sharing Understanding require deducting any overages of the U.S. quota for eastern GB cod, eastern GB haddock, or GB yellowtail flounder from the U.S. quota in the following fishing year. If catch information for the 2017 fishing year indicates that the U.S. fishery exceeded its quota for any of the shared stocks, we will reduce the respective U.S. quotas for the 2018 fishing year in a future management action, as close to May 1, 2018, as possible. If any fishery that is allocated a portion of the U.S. quota exceeds its allocation and causes an overage of the overall U.S. quota, the overage reduction would only be applied to that fishery's allocation in the following fishing year. This ensures that catch by one component of the overall fishery does not negatively affect another component of the overall fishery. An overage of the U.S. ABC of GB cod in 2016 is discussed in Section 6, Adjustments Due to Fishing Year 2016 Overages.

Tables 2 through 9 show the proposed catch limits for the 2018-2020 fishing years. A brief summary of how these catch limits were developed is provided below. More details on the proposed catch limits for each groundfish stock can be found in Appendix II (Calculation of Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Limits, FY 2018-FY 2020) to the Framework 57 Environmental Assessment (see ADDRESSES for information on how to get this document).

Through Framework 57, the Council proposes to adopt catch limits for the 20 groundfish stocks for the 2018-2020 fishing years based on assessments completed in 2017. Catch limit increases are proposed for 11 stocks: GB and GOM cod, GOM haddock, GB and Cape Cod (CC)/GOM yellowtail flounder, American plaice, witch flounder, GB winter flounder, redfish, pollock, and wolffish. For a number of stocks, the catch limits proposed in this action are lower than the catch limits set for the 2017 fishing year. Although some of these decreases are small, a 75-percent reduction is proposed for SNE/MA yellowtail flounder, and a 45-percent reduction is proposed for GOM winter flounder. The ABC for Atlantic halibut is a decrease from 2017, but is not expected to reduce landings because updated discard mortality information will result in a reduction in mortality attributed to discards. Table 2 details the percent change in the 2018 catch limit compared to the 2017 fishing year.

The overfishing limit (OFL) serves as the maximum amount of fish that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. The OFL for each stock is calculated using the estimated stock size and FMSY (i.e., the fishing mortality rate that, if applied over the long term, would result in maximum sustainable yield). The OFL does not account for scientific uncertainty, so the SSC typically recommends an ABC that is lower than the OFL in order to account for this uncertainty. Usually, the greater the amount of scientific uncertainty, the lower the ABC is set compared to the OFL. For GB cod, GB haddock, and GB yellowtail flounder, the total ABC is then reduced by the amount of the Canadian quota (see Table 1 for the Canadian share of these stocks). Additionally, although GB winter flounder and Atlantic halibut are not jointly managed with Canada, there is some Canadian catch of these stocks. Because the total ABC must account for all sources of fishing mortality, expected Canadian catch of GB winter flounder (45 mt) and Atlantic halibut (33 mt) is deducted from the total ABC. The U.S. ABC is the amount available to the U.S. fishery after accounting for Canadian catch.

Based on the SSC's recommendation, the Council recommended setting the OFL as unknown for GB yellowtail flounder, witch flounder, and Atlantic halibut. Empirical stock assessments are used for these three stocks, and these assessments can no longer provide quantitative estimates of the status determination criteria. In the temporary absence of an OFL, given recent catch data and estimated trends in stock biomass showing stability or improvement in stock conditions, we have preliminarily determined that these ABCs are a sufficient limit for preventing overfishing and are consistent with the National Standards. This action does not propose any changes to the status determination criteria for these stocks. During development of this action, we notified the Council that we are developing guidance on setting status determination criteria and relevant catch limits in cases when an empirical assessment cannot provide numerical estimates of traditional reference points.

The U.S. ABC for each stock is divided among the various fishery components to account for all sources of fishing mortality. First, an estimate of catch expected from state waters and the “other” sub-component (e.g., non-groundfish fisheries or some recreational groundfish fisheries) is deducted from the U.S. ABC. These sub-components are not subject to specific catch controls by the FMP. As a result, the state waters and other sub-components are not allocations, and these sub-components of the fishery are not subject to AMs if the catch limits are exceeded. After the state and other sub-components are deducted, the remaining portion of the U.S. ABC is distributed to the fishery components that receive an allocation for the stock. Components of the fishery that receive an allocation are subject to AMs if they exceed their respective catch limit during the fishing year. Fishing year 2016 overages of the GB cod, GOM cod, and witch flounder allocations are discussed in detail in Section 6, Adjustments Due to Fishing Year 2016 Overages.

Once the U.S. ABC is divided, sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) are set by reducing the amount of the ABC distributed to each component of the fishery to account for management uncertainty. Management uncertainty seeks to account for the possibility that management measures will result in a level of catch greater than expected. For each stock and fishery component, management uncertainty is estimated using the following criteria: enforceability and precision of management measures; adequacy of catch monitoring; latent effort; and whether the composition of catch includes landings and discards, or is all discards.

The total ACL is the sum of all of the sub-ACLs and state and other sub-components, and is the catch limit for a particular year after accounting for both scientific and management uncertainty. Landings and discards from all fisheries (commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries, state waters, and non-groundfish fisheries) are counted against the ACL for each stock.

For stocks allocated to sectors, the commercial groundfish sub-ACL is further divided into the non-sector (common pool) sub-ACL and the sector sub-ACL, based on the total vessel enrollment in sectors and the cumulative potential sector contributions (PSC) associated with those sectors. The preliminary sector and common pool sub-ACLs proposed in this action are based on fishing year 2018 PSCs and fishing year 2017 sector rosters. All permits enrolled in a sector, and the vessels associated with those permits, have until April 30, 2018, to withdraw from a sector and fish in the common pool for the 2018 fishing year. In addition to the enrollment delay, all permits that change ownership after December 1, 2017, may join a sector through April 30, 2018. We will publish final sector and common pool sub-ACLs based on final 2018 sector rosters as soon as possible after the start of the 2018 fishing year. These are adjusted later to reflect final sector enrollment.

The common pool sub-ACL for each stock (except for SNE/MA winter flounder, windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and Atlantic halibut) is further divided into trimester TACs. The distribution of the common pool sub-ACLs into trimesters was adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP (75 FR 18262; April 9, 2010) and was based on landing patterns at that time. Framework 57 proposes to revise the apportionment of TACs among the trimesters (discussed in detail in Section 5, Revisions to Common Pool Trimester Allocations). Once we project that 90 percent of the trimester TAC is caught for a stock, the trimester TAC area for that stock is closed for the remainder of the trimester. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing on a groundfish trip with gear capable of catching the pertinent stock. Any uncaught portion of the TAC in Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 is carried forward to the next trimester. Overages of the Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 TAC are deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any overages of the total common pool sub-ACL are deducted from the following fishing year's common pool sub-ACL for that stock. Uncaught portions of any trimester TAC may not be carried over into the following fishing year. Table 6 summarizes the common pool trimester TACs proposed in this action. These trimester TACs are based on the proposed changes to the apportionment of the common pool sub-ACL among the trimesters that are also included in this action.

Incidental catch TACs are also specified for certain stocks of concern (i.e., stocks that are overfished or subject to overfishing) for common pool vessels fishing in the special management programs (i.e., special access programs (SAP) and the Regular B Days-at-Sea (DAS) Program), in order to limit the catch of these stocks under each program. Tables 7 through 9 summarize the proposed Incidental Catch TACs for each stock and the distribution of these TACs to each special management program.

Overall fishing effort by both common pool and sector vessels in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP is controlled by an overall TAC for GB haddock, which is the target species for this SAP. The GB haddock TAC for the SAP is based on the amount allocated to this SAP for the 2004 fishing year (1,130 mt) and adjusted according to the growth or decline of the western GB haddock biomass in relationship to its size in 2004. Based on this formula, the Council's proposed GB Haddock TAC for this SAP is 2,511 mt for the 2018 fishing year. Once this overall TAC is caught, the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP will be closed to all groundfish vessels for the remainder of the fishing year.