Federal Register Vol. 83, No.65,

The USDA AMS administers the National Organic Program (NOP) under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6524). The regulations implementing the NOP, also referred to as the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205), were published on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548) and became effective on October 21, 2002. Through these regulations, AMS oversees national organic standards for the production, handling, and labeling of organically produced agricultural products.

Since October 2002, the USDA organic regulations have been frequently amended, mostly for changes to the National List in 7 CFR 205.601-205.606. The National List identifies synthetic substances that may be used and the nonsynthetic substances that must not be used in organic production. The National List also identifies synthetic, nonsynthetic nonagricultural, and nonorganic agricultural substances that may be used in organic handling. The OFPA and USDA organic regulations specifically prohibit the use of any synthetic substance in organic production and handling unless the synthetic substance is on the National List. Section 205.105 of the USDA organic regulations also requires that any nonorganic agricultural substance and any nonsynthetic nonagricultural substance used in organic handling appear on the National List.

The OFPA authorizes the NOSB, operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2 et seq.), to assist in the evaluation of substances to be allowed or prohibited for organic production and handling and to advise the Secretary on the USDA organic regulations. The OFPA also requires a review of all substances included on the National List within five years of their addition to or renewal on the list. During this sunset review, the NOSB considers any new information pertaining to a substance's impact on human health and the environment, its necessity due to the unavailability of wholly natural substances, and its consistency with organic production and handling. If a listed substance is not reviewed by the NOSB and renewed by the USDA within the five-year period, its allowance or prohibition on the National List is no longer in effect.

AMS published a revision of the sunset review process in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013 (78 FR 56811). This revised process provides public notice on the renewal of National List substances. This renewal occurs after the NOSB review.

In accordance with the sunset review process, AMS published two notices in the Federal Register announcing the NOSB meetings and inviting public comments pertinent to this renewal notification: March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14079) and August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50460). The NOSB also conducted two public webinars (April 19, 2016 and November 3, 2016), to provide opportunities for public comment. The NOSB received additional public comment during the face-to-face meetings on April 25-27, 2016 and November 16-18, 2016.

At these public meetings, the NOSB reviewed 17 substances with a 2018 sunset date. Table 1 shows the current listings for these substances. The NOSB recommended removing one substance, carrageenan, and completed its sunset review for the 16 other substances. The NOSB recommended removing carrageenan because they determined that alternative materials, such as gellan gum, guar gum, or xanthan gum, are available for use in organic products.

AMS has reviewed NOSB's sunset review document and decided to renew all 17 substances, including carrageenan. AMS found sufficient evidence in public comments to the NOSB that carrageenan continues to be necessary for handling agricultural products because of the unavailability of wholly natural substitutes (§ 6517(c)(1)(ii)). Carrageenan has specific uses in an array of agricultural products, and public comments reported that potential substitutes do not adequately replicate the functions of carrageenan across the broad scope of use. Therefore, carrageenan continues to meet the OFPA criteria for inclusion on the National List. The renewal of these 17 substances will avoid potential disruptions to the organic industry and the public that may otherwise result from their removal from the National List.

Table 1 lists the 17 synthetic and nonsynthetic substances on the National List that are being renewed. These substances continue to be included on the National List with a new sunset date of May 29, 2023.

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida. Part 905 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers operating within the production area and one public member.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

The handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida is regulated by 7 CFR part 905. Prior to this change, the minimum size requirement for oranges was 28/16 inches. The reduction in size requirement to 24/16 inches in diameter was established to meet both a market demand for small-sized oranges, as well as a general market shortage of citrus. Losses of citrus production in Florida due to citrus greening and damage caused by Hurricane Irma have resulted in an overall market shortage of citrus fruit. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the rule that relaxed the minimum size requirement for oranges from 28/16 inches to 24/16 inches in diameter.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2017, and effective on November 17, 2017, (82 FR 53397, Doc. No. AMS-SC-17-0064; SC17-905-2 IR), § 905.306 was amended by changing the minimum diameter for oranges from 28/16 inches to 24/16 inches in diameter. The relaxation in the size requirements would allow more oranges into the market and help maximize shipments.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 20 handlers of Florida Citrus who are subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 500 citrus producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the industry, and the Committee, the average f.o.b. price for Florida oranges during the 2016-17 season was $31.90 per box, and total fresh orange shipments were approximately 2.1 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, the majority of Florida orange handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition ($31.90 times 2.1 million boxes equals $66.99 million divided by 20 handlers equals $3,349,500 per handler). In addition, based on the NASS data, the average grower price for the 2016-2017 season was $17.51 per box. Based on grower price, shipment data, and the total number of Florida citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000 ($17.51 times 2.1 million boxes equals $36,771,000 divided by 500 growers equals $73,542 per grower). Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of oranges may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the interim rule that relaxed the minimum size requirements for oranges covered under the Order from 28/16 inches to 24/16 inches in diameter. This change is expected to maximize shipments by allowing more oranges to be shipped to the fresh market and will help reduce the losses sustained by the orange industry as a result of citrus greening and the September 2017 hurricane in Florida. This rule amends the provisions of § 905.306. Authority for this change is provided in § 905.52 of the Order.

This action is not expected to increase costs associated with the Order requirements. Rather, this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing the size requirements makes additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, provides an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, and affords more opportunity to meet consumer demand. This change provides additional fruit to fill the shortage cause by citrus greening and by Hurricane Irma. Further, by maximizing shipments, this action will help provide additional returns to growers and handlers as they work to recover from the losses stemming from the hurricane.

This action may also help reduce harvesting costs. By reducing the minimum size, more fruit can be harvested immediately. This may eliminate the need to leave fruit on the tree to increase in size, which requires follow-up picking later in the season. Given the amount of fruit loss, this could help reduce picking costs substantially. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh orange growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, “Generic Fruit Crops.” No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large orange handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the Florida citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the June 29, 2017, and September 28, 2017, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before January 16, 2018. Four comments were received during the comment period in response to the proposal. The commenters included three in favor and one raising concerns not applicable to the interim rule.

The three commenters in support of the interim rule indicated relaxing the minimum size requirement for domestic shipments from 28/16 inches to 24/16 inches in diameter would maximize shipments and reduce the financial burden on industry and consumers. In addition, they stated the reduction in size would mitigate the impact on consumers by allowing more inventory to enter the market.

Two commenters mentioned that Florida citrus growers face a financial burden due to decreases in production. One commenter noted that there has been a constant decline in production. Another commenter noted that Hurricane Irma resulted in nearly $760 million in damages to the citrus industry and that growers have reported as high as 70 percent crop loss.

Accordingly, no changes will be made to the interim rule based on the comments received.

To view the interim rule, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-SC-17-0064-0001.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, 13563, and 13771; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (82 FR 53397, November, 16, 2017) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

This final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. Part 929 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of cranberries operating within the production area, and a public member.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Order provisions provide that the Committee may recommend and implement, subject to USDA approval, volume control regulation that would decrease the available supply of cranberries, whenever the Secretary finds that “such regulation will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.” Accordingly, this rule establishes free and restricted percentages for cranberries for the 2017-18 crop year, beginning September 1, 2017, through August 31, 2018.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages for the 2017-18 crop year. This rule establishes the proportion of cranberries from the 2017-18 crop that may be handled at 85 percent free and 15 percent restricted. This action also allows for the disposal of 2017-18 processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of a handler's restriction. It also establishes a minimum quantity exemption, exempts handlers with no carryout inventory, exempts organically grown cranberries, and defines outlets for restricted fruit. This action adjusts supply to more closely meet market demand, improves grower returns, and helps reduce inventory.

The Committee met on August 4, 2017, and August 31, 2017, and recommended establishing these free and restricted percentages for the 2017-18 season, providing handlers with the option to divert processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of their restricted percentage, and designating outlets for restricted fruit. The Committee also recommended establishing a minimum exemption of 125,000 barrels for each handler. After much consideration, USDA determined the minimum exemption portion of the recommendation should be revised. Consequently, this rule only exempts small handlers who process less than 125,000 barrels or handlers who will not have carryover inventory at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year from the restriction. The 125,000 barrel exemption does not apply to handlers who do not meet these criteria. The Committee met again on January 17, 2018, to discuss the proposed rule following its publication in the Federal Register. The Committee recommended that USDA consider reducing the restricted percentage from 15 percent to 5 percent. After considering the recommendation and the data available, USDA determined the restricted percentage should remain at 15 percent.

Sections 929.52 and 929.54 authorize the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to control volume by designating free and restricted percentages for cranberries acquired by handlers in a given crop year. Section 929.52 provides that the Secretary shall control the handling of cranberries whenever the Secretary finds, from the recommendations and information submitted by the Committee, or from other such information, that such volume control will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Free percentage volume may be shipped to any market, while restricted percentage volume must be diverted or used for noncompetitive purposes as prescribed in § 929.57. Section 929.51 requires the Committee to consider certain conditions, including supply and demand, prior to recommending a handler withholding program, and that any recommendation to do so be made by August 31.

Section 929.58(a) provides the authority to exempt from any or all requirements the handling of cranberries in such minimum quantities as the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may prescribe. Section 929.58(b) provides, in part, the authority to exempt from any or all requirements the handling of cranberries of such forms or types, including organic cranberries, as the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may prescribe.

Domestic cranberry production has been increasing over the past few years, up from 8.0 million barrels in 2012 to 9.6 million barrels in 2016. During the last few years, demand has remained relatively flat, and has not kept pace with the increases in supply. This has led to increasing levels of inventories. Ending inventory levels have increased from 5.8 million barrels in 2012 to 9.7 million barrels in 2016.

Demand for cranberries is inelastic, meaning changes in consumer price have a minimal effect on total sales volume. However, grower prices are very sensitive to changes in supply. As such, higher inventory levels place downward pressure on grower prices for cranberries and reduce grower returns. Data reviewed by the Committee indicates that the price per barrel received by some growers has fallen from $30 a barrel in 2011 to $10 a barrel in 2016. With the cost of production estimated at approximately $35 a barrel, for many growers returns have fallen below the cost of production.

On August 4, 2017, and again on August 31, 2017, the Committee met to discuss the levels of supply and demand and how market conditions were impacting the industry. The Committee discussed the approximate levels of production for the 2017-18 season, forecasting production at approximately 9.1 million barrels. Carry-in inventory was estimated at approximately 9.9 million barrels and foreign acquired cranberries are expected to provide an additional 2.1 million barrels, for a total available supply of approximately 21.1 million barrels for the year. After accounting for shrinkage, the Committee agreed on an adjusted supply of 20.4 million barrels for the 2017-18 season.

The Committee also reviewed anticipated sales for the upcoming season. Sales for fresh fruit were estimated at 333,000 barrels and processed fruit sales were estimated at 9.2 million barrels. Based on these expectations, inventory at the end of the 2017-18 crop year was anticipated to be roughly 10.9 million barrels, a 10 percent increase from the previous year. Using these numbers, end of year inventories would be approximately 115 percent of average annual sales.

After calculating the anticipated level of surplus for the 2017-18 season, the Committee agreed the industry is faced with a large inventory that continues to build. In its discussions of how to address this issue, the Committee considered several options. During the discussion of regulating the volume for the 2017-18 season, some members preferred establishing a producer allotment for the 2018-19 season over implementing a handler withholding for the current season. However, other members stated that if no action was taken to control supply for the 2017-18 season, another million barrels of cranberries would be added to the surplus inventory. In addition, not regulating the 2017-18 crop would require greater levels of restriction on the 2018-19 crop, and grower returns may decline further.

The Committee discussed various levels of restriction, being sensitive to the impact volume control could have on small handlers. Some small handlers are able to sell all their production each year and do not maintain an inventory. Several Committee members stated a large restriction would place a hardship on these small handlers.

The Committee also recognized a small restriction would not immediately balance supply with demand. However, even a small restriction would remove a portion of the volume from the market and help prevent an additional increase in inventory. Therefore, based on these discussions, the Committee recommended establishing free and restricted percentages at 85 percent free and 15 percent restricted.

The Committee also recommended an allowance for the diversion of 2017-18 processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of a handler's restriction. The Committee made this recommendation recognizing that processing fresh fruit to produce one of its top-selling items, sweetened dried cranberries (SDC), results in juice concentrate as a by-product. A significant amount of current carryover inventory is in the form of juice concentrate. By allowing for the diversion of processed cranberry products, such as juice concentrate, to meet a portion of a handler's restriction, the Committee believes this will help prevent additional build-up of carryover inventory. The ability to use cranberry processed products in addition to fresh berries to meet diversion requirements may also help handlers who find they need to divert additional volume late in the year when the availability of fresh berries may be limited.

To ensure the disposal of processed products in lieu of fresh berries is correctly accounted for under the restriction, the Committee also recommended including a conversion table, Table 1, in the regulations. The table recognizes different conversion equivalencies of berries to processed product based on the volume of Brix concentrate.

Brix is the method for measuring the amount of sugar contained in the cranberry products, and the industry average is 50 Brix per concentrate. The Committee acknowledged that the Brix level can vary depending on the growing region and farming practices. This table assists in ensuring that the disposal of processed product in lieu of fresh berries is applied equitably among all handlers.

For example, using the conversion table above, handlers could determine the amount of cranberry concentrate they would need to divert, in lieu of fresh berries, to cover any restricted percentage. Juice concentrate should comprise the vast majority of processed product used for diversion. Should requests be made to use other processed products for diversion, conversion rates for those products will be provided by the Committee based on information provided by the requesting handler. The means for approving and appealing those conversion rates will be provided in a separate rulemaking action.

For example, a handler covered under the restriction whose acquired volume is 1,000,000 barrels would have 1,000,000 barrels in regulated volume with 850,000 barrels of free use cranberries (1,000,000 × .85) and 150,000 barrels of restricted use cranberries (1,000,000 × .15) for the 2017-18 season. Under this rule, the handler could divert fresh fruit to outlets for restricted cranberries as prescribed in the Order, or divert up to 50 percent of the restriction, or a 75,000 barrel equivalent (150,000 barrels ÷ 2) in processed products from the 2017-18 harvest, with the remaining amount fulfilled using fresh berries. For cranberries produced in Wisconsin, this would equate to 127,500 gallons of concentrate (75,000 barrels × 1.7 gallons) that would need to be diverted to outlets for restricted cranberries.

Section 929.57 states that cranberries withheld from handling may only be diverted through such outlets as the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, finds are noncompetitive to outlets for unrestricted (free percentage) cranberries. The Committee discussed various outlets and recommended the following: Foreign countries, except Canada; charitable institutions; any nonhuman food use; and, research and development projects approved by the Committee dealing with the development of foreign and domestic markets, including, but not limited to dehydration, radiation, freeze drying, or freezing of cranberries as outlets for withheld cranberries. They further recommended that cranberries may not be converted into canned, frozen, or dehydrated cranberries or other cranberry products by any commercial process prior to diversion to foreign countries. These outlets for restricted cranberries will be added to the rules and regulations under the Order by creating a new § 929.108.

The Committee also recommended organically grown cranberries be exempt from this regulation as they serve a niche market and represent a very small portion of the total crop. All other cranberry production, including fresh cranberries, is subject to regulation under the handler withhold volume regulation.

To address the burden the volume regulation would have on small handlers, the Committee also recommended providing a minimum quantity exemption of 125,000 barrels. Under the Committee's recommendation, the exemption would be given to handlers of record for the 2016-17 (previous) crop year and the 125,000 barrels would be subtracted from the handler's 2017-18 acquired volume before the restricted percentage would be applied. Small handlers whose acquired volume is 125,000 barrels or less would be exempt from the volume regulation, and handlers with slightly larger volumes would face minimal restrictions.

After much consideration, USDA determined the minimum exemption recommendation should be revised under this rule. Rather than provide an exemption of 125,000 barrels for each handler, this action exempts small handlers who process less than 125,000 barrels from the 15 percent restriction. Further, only handlers who have carryover inventory that is not sold or under contract at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year are subject to the 15 percent restriction. These changes reflect the Committee's goal of reducing the burden on small handlers, and allow handlers that have matched their production with market demand to continue to serve their customer base and protect their market share. Handlers subject to the restriction should be able to meet any market shortfalls by utilizing cranberries or cranberry products they have in inventory.

With this change, only those handlers carrying inventory will be subject to the restriction. In reviewing the Committee's recommendation and other available industry information, it is the existing inventories in excess of 9 million barrels that are putting the most downward pressure on returns to both growers and handlers. Consequently, this change will put more focus on reducing the volume in inventory.

The Committee met again on January 17, 2018, to discuss the proposed rule on this action as published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 72). At the meeting, members discussed current market conditions. When the Committee had recommended the 15 percent restriction in August 2017, domestic production had been estimated at 9.14 million barrels. Since that time, Committee members stated that weather conditions had impacted production and that domestic production would actually be closer to 8 million barrels. Based on the reduced crop estimate, in a vote of 12 in favor, one against, and one abstention, the Committee voted to recommend reducing the restricted percentage from 15 percent to 5 percent. Members stated that the reduction in the crop, in combination with the reduced restriction, would still combine to remove a similar amount of fruit from the market as was originally projected under the 15 percent restriction.

USDA reviewed the recommendation made by the Committee to reduce the restricted percentage from 15 percent to 5 percent. Based on a revised 2017 domestic production of 8.085 million barrels, down from an estimated 9.14 million barrels, revising the restricted percentage to 5 percent, and considering exempt production, would remove approximately 366,000 barrels of cranberries from the market, leaving inventory as a percentage of sales at approximately 90.5 percent. Keeping the restricted percentage at 15 percent would remove approximately 1.1 million barrels of cranberries from the market, resulting in inventory as a percentage of sales of 82.9 percent. In addition, as some handlers may be exempt from the regulation as they are not carrying cranberries in inventory, the actual volume of cranberries removed from the market may be less. Given that the purpose of the volume regulation is to help reduce the existing levels of inventory, USDA has determined that the restricted percentage should remain at 15 percent.

Accordingly, this rule establishes free and restricted percentages of 85 percent and 15 percent, respectively, for the 2017-18 season, provides handlers with the option to divert processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of their restricted percentage, and defines outlets for restricted fruit. This rule also exempts small handlers who process less than 125,000 barrels from the restriction, as well as handlers with no carryover inventory.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 1,100 cranberry growers in the regulated area and approximately 65 cranberry handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to industry and Committee data, the average grower price for cranberries during the 2016-17 season was $23.50 per barrel and total sales were approximately 9.5 million barrels. The value for cranberries that year totaled $223,250,000 ($23.50 per barrel multiplied by 9.5 million barrels). Taking the total value of production for cranberries and dividing it by the total number of cranberry growers provides an average return per grower of $202,955. Using the average price and utilization information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of cranberry growers receive less than $750,000 annually.

According to USDA's Market News report, the average free on board (f.o.b.) price for cranberries was approximately $30.00 per barrel. Multiplying the f.o.b. price by total utilization of 9.5 million barrels results in an estimated handler-level cranberry value of $285 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers (65) yields an estimated average annual handler receipt of $4.3 million, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, the majority of producers and handlers of cranberries may be classified as small entities.

While cranberry production has continued to rise, demand has failed to keep pace, and inventories have been increasing. In an industry such as cranberries, product can be stored in inventory for long periods of time. Large inventories are costly to maintain, difficult to market, and have a price-depressing effect. When supply outpaces demand resulting in high levels of inventories, grower and handler returns can be negatively impacted.

Demand for cranberries is inelastic, meaning changes in consumer price have a minimal effect on total sales. However, grower prices are very sensitive to changes in supply. With an inelastic demand, even a small shift in supply can affect grower prices. Setting free and restricted percentages will more closely align supply with demand. Free percentage cranberries can be marketed by handlers to any outlet, while restricted percentage volume can only be used for noncompetitive purposes. Establishing free and restricted percentages results in a decrease in supply, as handlers can only deliver a certain portion of their cranberries into the competitive marketplace. Therefore, using volume regulation to reduce supply should increase grower and handler prices and revenues.

This final rule controls the supply of cranberries by establishing free and restricted percentages at 85 percent free and 15 percent restricted for the 2017-18 crop year. It also allows for the diversion of 2017-18 processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of a handler's restriction. In addition, this rule establishes a minimum quantity exemption, exempts handlers with no carryout inventory, exempts organically grown cranberries, and defines outlets for restricted fruit. These actions are designed to help stabilize market conditions, reduce burdensome inventories, and improve grower and handler returns. This rule establishes new §§ 929.107, 929.108 and 929.252. The authority for these actions is provided for in §§ 929.51, 929.52, 929.54, 929.57, and 929.58. These changes are based on Committee recommendations from meetings on August 4 and August 31, 2017.

While these actions could result in some additional costs to the industry, the benefits are expected to outweigh them. The purpose of establishing free and restricted percentages is to address oversupply conditions and to stabilize grower prices. The industry has a significant volume in inventory, and this has had a negative impact on grower and handler returns. Without volume control, inventories would likely continue to increase, further lowering returns.

Inventories have more than doubled since 2011. In 2011, existing inventories were around 4.6 million barrels. By the end of the 2016-17 season, inventories are anticipated to be approximately 9.9 million barrels. Inventories as a percentage of total sales have also been increasing from approximately 50 percent in 2010 to approximately 103 percent in 2016, and will reach an anticipated 115 percent after the 2017-18 season if volume control is not implemented. These inventories have had a depressing effect on grower prices, which for many has fallen below their cost of production.

Retail demand for cranberries is highly inelastic, which indicates changes in consumer price do not result in significant changes in the quantity demanded. Consumer prices largely do not reflect small changes in cranberry supplies. Therefore, this action should have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in a reduction in retail sales. However, even a small shift in supply can increase grower and handler returns. The use of free and restricted percentages will likely have a positive impact on grower and handler returns for this crop year.

This final rule will result in some fruit being taken off the market. However, a sufficient amount of fruit will still be available to supply all aspects of the market. In addition, allowing handlers the option to divert 2017-18 processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of their restriction provides handlers some additional flexibility and may help reduce inventories of juice concentrate, one of the largest segments of existing inventory.

This action also exempts small handlers who process less than 125,000 barrels from the restriction. Consequently, small handlers whose acquired volume is 125,000 barrels or less are exempt from the volume restriction. This reduces the burden the volume restriction has on small handlers and their growers.

In addition, only handlers who have carryover inventory that is not sold or under contract at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year are subject to the 15 percent restriction. This allows handlers that have matched their production with market demand to continue to serve their customer base and protect their market share. Handlers subject to the restriction should be able to meet any shortfalls by utilizing cranberries or cranberry products they have in inventory.

There are also secondary uses available for restricted fruit, including foreign markets except Canada, charitable institutions, nonhuman food use, and research and development projects. While these alternatives may provide different levels of return than sales to primary markets, they play an important role for the industry. In addition, if demand is greater than anticipated, there are significant amounts of fruit in inventory that could be utilized to meet demand.

As the restriction represents a percentage of a handler's volume, the costs, when applicable, are proportionate and should not place an extra burden on small entities as compared to large entities. Likewise, growers and handlers, regardless of size, benefit from the stabilizing effects of this restriction.

One alternative considered was not to impose volume restrictions during the 2017-18 crop year. However, Committee members believed that inventory levels were such that some form of volume control was necessary to help stabilize marketing conditions.

The Committee also considered other levels of free and restricted percentages. However, some members were concerned that setting a restriction that was too high could negatively impact small handlers. The Committee also considered not recommending a provision to allow the disposal of 2017-18 processed cranberry products to meet up to 50-percent of a handler's restriction. However, the Committee determined allowing the diversion of cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of the restriction allows large handlers to reduce inventory and not add additional volumes of juice concentrate to the existing inventory levels. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, these alternatives were rejected by the Committee.

However, the Committee later recommended an alternative to USDA. After its January 17, 2018 meeting, the Committee recommended reducing its previously requested 15 percent restriction to 5 percent. USDA determined that lowering the restricted percentage by this amount would not sufficiently reduce carryover inventory, and thus would not relieve the downward pressure on grower prices.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops.

This final rule establishes free and restricted percentages and handler diversion options under the Order. On February 15, 2018, USDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 6800) seeking comment on new information requirements and Committee forms to support diversion procedures when volume regulation is established. The impact of the new requirements will be addressed in that rulemaking. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the cranberry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 4 and August 31, 2017, and January 17, 2018, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on these issues.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 72). Copies of the proposed rule were sent via email to Committee members and cranberry handlers. Finally, the proposed rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending February 1, 2018, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal.

During the comment period, 174 comments were received in response to the proposal. Of the comments received, 13 were in support of the proposed regulation, 123 comments supported regulation with some changes to the proposal (101 of these comments were from growers affiliated with the major industry cooperative), 37 were opposed to the proposed regulation, and 1 took no position.

Four of the comments in support of the rule stated USDA should maintain the restricted percentage at 15 percent even with the reduction in the size of the 2017-18 crop. Three commenters stated a five percent restriction would do little to support the industry, especially as the decrease in the 2017-18 crop could be offset by an increase in the 2018-19 crop. One commenter stated that maintaining the higher percentage, along with the reduction in the 2017-18 crop, would have an even greater impact on inventories. Another commenter stated that keeping the restricted percentage at 15 percent sends a message that the oversupply will be dealt with. One commenter stated full support for the proposed regulation as a way to keep the industry healthy and profitable. Another commenter recognized that the industry has enough cranberries in inventory to supply the next 12 months. One commenter also indicated they thought the percentage of restricted cranberries could have been even higher. Support of the exemption for organic cranberries was voiced by one commenter, who stated that a restriction on this sector would inhibit future market growth.

In the comments that supported volume regulation, but with changes from what was included in the proposed rule, 107 commenters stated that they supported volume regulation as a way to reduce the volume of cranberries available in the marketplace and help increase returns. Of these, 106 commenters indicated that oversupply conditions had reached such levels that some action needed to be taken, and 104 commenters also referenced the positive impact of previous volume regulations established for the 2000 and 2001 seasons. Three commenters also indicated that the decrease in the 2017-18 crop size has already had a positive impact on price, and that the proposed regulation has also had a positive effect.

Three other commenters requesting adjustments to the proposal stated their support for maintaining the restricted percentage at 15 percent. One of those commenters stated that dropping the restriction to five percent would be too low to effectively impact the oversupply. Another commenter stated that a timely reduction in supply is essential. Another comment stated that the industry should hold the restriction at 15 percent and take advantage of the short crop as a bonus.

Of those commenters requesting a change to the proposed rule, 119 commenters supported reducing the restricted percentage from 15 percent to 5 percent. Of these, 112 referenced the decrease in the volume of the 2017-18 crop as rationale for reducing the restricted percentage.

As stated above, USDA reviewed the Committee's recommendation to reduce the restricted percentage from 15 percent to five percent based on an approximate 10 percent reduction in the 2017-18 crop. The industry began the year with approximately 9.7 million barrels in inventory, an amount greater than estimated total sales for the 2017-18 season. Using the revised 2017-18 domestic production estimate of 8.085 million barrels, revising the restricted percentage to five percent would remove approximately 366,000 barrels of cranberries from the market, leaving inventory as a percentage of sales at around 90.5 percent.

Maintaining the restricted percentage at 15 percent would remove approximately 1.1 million barrels of cranberries from the market, resulting in inventory as a percentage of sales of 82.9 percent. Further, since handlers with no carryover inventory are exempt from the regulation, the actual volume of cranberries removed from the market may be less than calculated with either a 15 or 5 percentage restriction. In addition, handlers have already been establishing plans to comply with a 15 percent restriction. Given that the purpose of the volume regulation is to help reduce supply and inventory, USDA has determined that the restricted percentage should remain at 15 percent.

Another 103 commenters requested that the final rule clarify that processed products may be used for charitable purposes as an outlet for restricted cranberries. This final rule adds § 929.108, which specifies the outlets for restricted cranberries. As stated above, the Committee recommended that cranberries may not be converted into canned, frozen, or dehydrated cranberries or other cranberry products by any commercial process prior to diversion to foreign countries. The limitation is written specifically into § 929.108(a). However, this restriction of whole fruit only does not apply to diversion to charitable institutions, any nonhuman food use, or research and development projects approved by the Committee dealing with the development of foreign and domestic markets, including as processed fruit.

In addition, these same commenters also asked that processed products sent to outlets for restricted cranberries, specifically for charity, not count toward the diversion of 2017-18 processed cranberry products to meet up to 50 percent of a handler's restriction. When free and restricted percentages are established, restricted percentage volume must be diverted or used in noncompetitive outlets. The restricted percentage is applied to each individual handler's volume to establish the volume of cranberries that need to be diverted. Under the final rule, 50 percent of this amount can be met using 2017-18 processed cranberry products. Consequently, regardless of how the handler is diverting processed products into noncompetitive outlets, 2017-18 processed products can only be used to meet 50 percent of the handler's restriction. Restriction aside, handlers are always able, and encouraged, to donate as much whole fruit or processed products to charity as they can.

Thirteen commenters indicated the exemption added by USDA for handlers that have no inventory after August 31, 2018, is problematic and should be changed. Two of these commenters indicated that inventory is not clearly defined for the purposes of this exemption, and that some handlers need inventory beyond that date in order to operate. Two comments also expressed concern about how the Committee would be able to track compliance with this change. One commenter said this provision should be removed.

Another 11 commenters also expressed concerns regarding the change USDA made to the 125,000 barrel exemption recommended by the Committee. Five commenters stated this would adversely affect midsize handlers. Three commenters indicated the exemption for the first 125,000 barrels for each handler as recommended by the Committee was fair, but with this change it is no longer equitable. One commenter stated this change would cost growers money in extra charges from the handlers.

In reviewing the Committee's recommendation and other available industry information, USDA has determined that the existing inventories in excess of 9 million barrels are putting the most downward pressure on returns to both growers and handlers. Rather than provide an exemption of 125,000 barrels for each handler, this action exempts small handlers who process less than 125,000 barrels from the 15 percent restriction. Small handlers processing less than 125,000 barrels make up nearly 88 percent of all handlers, yet combined only account for less than 10 percent of the total volume.

Further, only handlers who have carryover inventory at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year are subject to the 15 percent restriction. These changes further reduce the burden on small handlers and provide an exemption to handlers that have matched their production with market demand allowing them to continue to serve their customer base and protect their market share. With this change, only those handlers carrying inventory would be subject to the restriction.

As stated above, inventory is product that is not sold or under contract at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year. If a handler is carrying inventory from the 2017-18 season, and/or previous seasons, at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year (August 31, 2018) the handler will be subject to the restriction. In regards to compliance, the Committee has hired additional support to assist with this volume regulation. Further, handlers maintain information on inventory and should be able to supply the paperwork necessary to demonstrate if they qualify for the inventory exemption.

Three commenters stated that the rule should be changed to allow handlers to meet 100 percent of their restriction using processed product. Four others stated handlers should not be allowed to substitute byproduct concentrate to meet 50 percent of the restriction. While a significant portion of existing inventory is concentrate, not all handlers produce concentrate or concentrate as a byproduct of SDC production. Allowing the use of 50 percent of 2017-18 cranberry products to meet the required restriction represents a compromise that recognizes the need to reduce the inventory volume of cranberry concentrate, while also acknowledging the overall oversupply facing the industry.

Some of the comments from those in opposition to the proposed rule echo the comments made by those requesting changes to the proposal. Twelve commenters in opposition to the proposed rule stated the weather had taken care of the problem of oversupply for the current season, negating the need for establishing the restriction. Five commenters referenced the change to the 125,000 barrel exemption, and another four commenters referenced the exemption for handlers with no inventory at the end of the 2017-18 fiscal year as reasons for opposing the regulation. Comments similar to these are addressed above.

Seven commenters opposed the proposal, citing the oversupply of concentrate as the cause of the industry's problems. Two additional commenters opposed the proposed regulation because handlers could divert 50 percent of 2017-18 products to meet their restriction. While concentrate does represent a large portion of the existing inventory, the level of frozen berries is even higher. Industry data shows that at the end of the 2016-17 fiscal year, of the estimated 9.7 million barrels in inventory, approximately 4.2 million barrels were frozen berries, while approximately 3.7 million barrels were from concentrate. Consequently, the rule provides for the diversion of product to meet 50 percent of the restriction as a way to reduce the inventory of concentrate. However, reducing overall supply, including whole fruit, is also important in addressing the current level of inventory.

Twelve comments stated that the proposed regulation would negatively impact growers by reducing their returns. Seven commenters stated the proposed regulation originated from the major cooperative. Another six commenters stated that if finalized this regulation would adversely affect midsize handlers. While these actions could result in some additional costs to the industry, the benefits are expected to outweigh them. The purpose of establishing free and restricted percentages is to address oversupply conditions and to stabilize grower prices. The industry has a significant volume in inventory, and this has had a negative impact on grower and handler returns. Growers and handlers, both large and small, should benefit from this regulation. It is estimated that approximately 1.1 million barrels of cranberries will be removed from inventories are a result of this rule. Lowering inventory levels is expected to result in positive returns for the entire industry.

Four commenters opposed the regulation because the restriction does not apply to Canada or other foreign production. These commenters stated that without it being restricted, foreign product could be used to offset the domestic product being restricted. USDA has not made any revisions as a result of these comments because, as an initial matter, the Order cannot regulate imported volume. Moreover, for this argument to be relevant, the 15 percent restriction would need to cause a market shortfall in the production area. However, given that the production area market entered the 2017-18 season with more cranberries and product in inventory than anticipated sales, and on top of that had an additional 8.1 million barrels of production, USDA has determined there is ample domestic supply to meet sales requirements and there is no risk of an impending market shortfall.

Four comments in opposition to the proposal also stated that it would be implemented too late to have benefit, as growers have already incurred the cost of producing their full crop. In discussing this issue, the Committee recognized that utilizing a producer allotment allowed growers to make adjustments to reduce their costs, they determined that the situation with the oversupply was such that something needed to be done for the 2017-18 season. Committee members were concerned that delaying action would only result in higher inventories for the 2018-19 season and the need for an even larger volume regulation in the future. Despite the timing, the Committee anticipates that use of handler free and restricted percentages will likely have a positive impact on grower and handler returns for the current crop year.

Finally, three commenters stated that nothing should be done and that the market be allowed to dictate what happens with industry. Under the Order, the Committee has the authority to recommend volume regulation to the Secretary to help manage supply and demand. The Committee chose to utilize this authority to address the current oversupply situation and to help industry returns.

Additional comments were received that addressed issues outside the scope of the proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed above, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation of the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is amended as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida. Part 966, (referred to as the “Order”), is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers of tomatoes operating within the area of production.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Florida tomato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable tomatoes beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.035 to $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of tomatoes handled.

The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of Florida tomatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on August 22, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of tomatoes. Last year's budgeted expenditures were also $1,494,600. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.010 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers and utilize funds from the authorized reserve to help cover Committee expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $450,000 for staff salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were the same.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of Florida tomatoes, and the level of funds in the authorized reserve. Tomato shipments for the year are estimated at 33 million 25-pound containers, which should provide $825,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $979,410) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 966.44).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate will be effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 80 producers of Florida tomatoes in the production area and 47 handlers subject to regulation under the Marketing Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2016-17 season was approximately $8.00 per 25-pound container, and total fresh shipments were 32.8 million containers. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have average annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. Based on production data, an estimated producer price of $3.00 per 25-pound container, and the number of Florida tomato producers, the average annual producer revenue is above $750,000. Thus, a majority of the handlers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities, while a majority of the producers may be classified as large entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.035 to $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of Florida tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.010 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable Florida tomatoes for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 33 million 25-pound containers or equivalent. Thus, the $0.025 rate should provide $825,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $450,000 for staff salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were also $450,000, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.

The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers and utilize funds from the authorized reserve to help cover Committee expenses.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Finance Subcommittee, Education and Promotion Subcommittee, and the Research Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the Florida tomato industry. The Committee ultimately determined the assessment revenue, along with interest income and funds from authorized reserves should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal period.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average producer price for the 2017-18 season could be about $6.50 per 25-pound container or equivalent of Florida tomatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total producer revenue should be around 0.4 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 22, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As mentioned in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2017 (82 FR 58133). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all Florida tomato handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending January 10, 2018, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments on the proposed assessment rate or the administrative revisions were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is amended as follows:

Background

On February 10, 2016, SWS applied for a supplemental type certificate for the installation of overhead passenger-sleeping compartments in the main deck of Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes. The Model 747-8 airplane is a wide-body airplane equipped with four turbofan engines. This airplane has a maximum seating capacity of 605 passengers and 12 cabin crewmembers, and has a maximum takeoff weight of 987,000 lbs.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, SWS must show that the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A20WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “type certification basis.” The certification basis for the Model 747-8 is part 25, as amended by amendment 25-1 through amendment 25-120, with exceptions permitted by § 21.101.

In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 747-8 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as modified by SWS, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Overhead passenger-sleeping compartments in the main deck.

SWS, located in the United Kingdom, will install an AeroloftTM Overhead Passenger Sleeping/Rest Compartment (OPSC) in the crown area of the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, in front of the Overhead Flight Attendant Rest (OFAR) Compartment. The operation of this airplane is limited for private use only, not for hire, not for common carriage. The OPSC is similar in function and design to the OFAR but will be for passenger use. Specifically, the OPSC consists of eight passenger-sleeping compartments, with single occupancy for each compartment. The OPSC includes a station for a trained flight attendant, and is intended for in-flight use only; not during taxi, takeoff, or landing. The size of the installation is similar to the OFAR and will have a separate staircase for access in the front of the compartment, in the main deck near the door 4 area. The OPSC is open for passengers only when a flight attendant is present in the OPSC. This dedicated flight attendant is allocated for passenger briefing on emergency procedures, evacuation, and for the use of emergency equipment and systems within the OPSC.

These special conditions establish seating, communication, lighting, personal safety, and evacuation requirements for the OPSC compartment. In addition, passenger information signs and placards, supplemental oxygen, and a seat or berth for each occupant of the OPSC compartment are required. These items are necessary because of turbulence or decompression. When applicable, the requirements parallel the existing requirements for an overhead service compartment, and provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided for main-deck occupants.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-18-01-SC, for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7638). The FAA received two comments. One commenter is in support of these special conditions. The other commenter suggested general applicability regulations on the subject matter of these special conditions. The FAA suggests that the substance of this comment may be better addressed as a petition for rulemaking under 14 CFR part 11.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane as modified by SWS. Should SWS apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A20WE, to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this feature on the airplane.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, as the certification date for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as modified by SWS, is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon publication.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes modified by SWS Certification Services, Ltd.

(1) During flight, occupancy of the Overhead Passenger Sleeping/Rest Compartment is limited to the total number of installed bunks in the compartment that are approved to the maximum flight-loading conditions. Therefore, the OPSC is limited to a maximum of eight occupants for in-flight use only.

(a) Occupancy of the OPSC is for passengers only when a dedicated flight attendant is present in the OPSC.

(b) The OPSC design must include appropriate placards located inside and outside each entrance to the OPSC to indicate:

(i) The maximum number of eight occupants allowed during flight.

(ii) Occupancy is prohibited during taxi, take-off, and landing.

(iii) Smoking is prohibited in the OPSC.

(iv) Stowage in the OPSC area is limited to personal luggage. The stowage of cargo is not allowed.

(c) The airplane must contain at least one ashtray on both the inside and the outside of any entrance to the OPSC.

(2) The following requirements are applicable to OPSC door(s):

(a) For any door installed between the OPSC and the passenger cabin, a means must be provided to allow the door to be quickly opened from inside the OPSC, even when crowding from an emergency evacuation occurs at each side of the door.

(b) Doors installed across emergency egress routes must have a means to latch them in the open position. The latching means must be able to withstand the loads imposed upon it when the door is subjected to the ultimate inertia forces, relative to the surrounding structure, listed in § 25.561(b).

(c) The OPSC design must include a placard displayed in a conspicuous location on the outside of the entrance door of the OPSC, and on any other door(s) installed across emergency egress routes of the OPSC, requiring those doors to be latched closed during taxi, takeoff, and landing (TT&L).

(i) This requirement does not apply to emergency-escape hatches installed in the OPSC.

(ii) The OPSC design must include a placard displayed in a conspicuous place on the outside of the entrance door to the OPSC that requires the door to be closed and locked when it is not occupied.

(iii) The design-approval holder must transmit procedures for meeting these requirements to the operator for incorporation into training programs and appropriate operational manuals.

(d) For all outlet doors installed in the OPSC, a means must be in place to preclude anyone from being trapped inside the OPSC. If the design installs a locking mechanism, the locking mechanism must be capable of being unlocked from the outside without the aid of special tools. The lock must not prevent opening from the inside of the OPSC at any time.

(3) At least two emergency-evacuation routes must be available, and which could be used by each occupant of the OPSC to rapidly evacuate to the main cabin. A person must be able to close these evacuation routes from the main passenger cabin after evacuation. In addition;

(a) The design must include routes with sufficient separation within the OPSC to minimize the possibility of an event either inside or outside of the OPSC, rendering both routes inoperative. The design-approval holder may show compliance by inspection or by analysis. Regardless of which method is used, the maximum acceptable distance between OPSC exits is 60 feet.

(b) The design-approval holder must design routes to minimize the possibility of blockage, which might result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons standing below or against the OPSC outlets. If an evacuation route is in an area where normal movement or evacuation of passengers occurs, the applicant must demonstrate that passengers would not impede egress to the main deck. If low headroom is at or near the evacuation route, the design must make provisions to prevent or to protect occupants of the OPSC from head injury. Use of evacuation routes must not depend on any powered device. If an OPSC evacuation route outlet is over an area of passenger seats, the design may allow the temporary displacement of a maximum of five passengers from their seats during the process of evacuating an incapacitated person(s). If such an evacuation procedure involves the evacuee stepping on seats, the evacuee must not damage seats to the extent that the seats would not be acceptable for occupancy during an emergency landing.

(c) The design-approval holder must establish emergency-evacuation procedures, including procedures for emergency evacuation of an incapacitated occupant from the OPSC. The design-approval holder must transmit all of these procedures to the operator for incorporation into training programs and appropriate operational manuals.

(d) The design-approval holder must include a limitation in the airplane flight manual (AFM), or other suitable means, to require that crewmembers are trained in the use of the OPSC evacuation routes. This training must instruct crewmembers to ensure that the OPSC (including seats, doors, etc.) is in the proper TT&L configuration during TT&L.

(e) In the event no flight attendant is present in the area around the OPSC outlet door, and also during an emergency, including an emergency evacuation, a means must be available to prevent passengers from entering the OPSC.

(f) Doors or hatches separating the OPSC from the main deck must not adversely affect evacuation of occupants on the main deck (slowing evacuation by encroaching into aisles, for example), or cause injury to those occupants during opening or while opened.

(g) The means of opening outlet doors and hatches to the OPSC compartment must be simple and obvious. The OPSC compartment outlet doors and hatches must be able to be closed from the main passenger cabin.

(4) A means must be available for evacuating an incapacitated person (representative of a 95th percentile male) from the OPSC compartment to the passenger cabin floor. The design-approval holder must demonstrate such an evacuation for all evacuation routes.

(5) The design-approval holder must provide the following signs and placards in the OPSC, and the signs and placards must meet the following criteria:

(a) At least one exit sign, located near each OPSC evacuation-route outlet, meeting the emergency-lighting requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i). One allowable exception would be a sign with reduced background area of no less than 5.3 square inches (excluding the letters), provided that it is installed so that the material surrounding the exit sign is light in color (white, cream, light beige, for example). If the material surrounding the exit sign is not light in color, a sign with a minimum of a one-inch-wide background border around the letters would be acceptable. Another allowable exception is a sign with a symbol that the FAA has determined to be equivalent for use as an exit sign in an OPSC.

(b) The OPSC design must conspicuously locate an appropriate placard on or near each OPSC outlet door or hatch that defines the location and the operating instructions for access to, and operation of, the outlet door or hatch.

(c) Placards must be readable from a distance of 30 inches under emergency lighting conditions.

(d) The design must illuminate the door or hatch handles and operating-instruction placards, required by Special Condition 5b of these special conditions, to at least 160 microlamberts under emergency-lighting conditions.

(6) An automatic means of emergency illumination must be available in the OPSC in the event of failure of the airplane main power system, or failure of the normal OPSC lighting system.

(a) The design must power this emergency illumination independently of the main lighting system.

(b) The sources of general cabin illumination may be common to both the emergency and the main lighting systems if the power supply to the emergency lighting system is independent of the power supply to the main lighting system.

(c) The illumination level must be sufficient to allow occupants of the OPSC to locate and move to the main passenger cabin floor by means of each evacuation route.

(d) The illumination level must be sufficient, with the privacy curtains in the closed position, for each occupant of the OPSC compartment to locate a deployed oxygen mask.

(7) A means must be available for two-way voice communications between crewmembers on the flight deck and occupants of the OPSC. Two-way communications must also be available, between occupants of the OPSC and each flight-attendant station in the passenger cabin, per § 25.1423(g) for areas required to have a public-address-system microphone. In addition, the public-address system must include provisions to provide only the relevant information to the crewmembers in the OPSC (e.g., fire in flight, airplane depressurization, preparation of the compartment for landing, etc.). That is, provisions must be made so that occupants of the OPSC will not be disturbed with normal, non-emergency announcements made to the passenger cabin.

(8) A means must be available for manual activation of an aural emergency-alarm system, audible during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the flight deck and at each pair of required floor-level emergency exits to alert occupants of the OPSC of an emergency situation. Use of a public-address or crew-interphone system will be acceptable, provided an adequate means of differentiating between normal and emergency communications is incorporated. The design must power the system in flight, after the shutdown or failure of all engines and auxiliary power units, for a period of at least ten minutes.

(9) A means must be in place, readily detectable by seated or standing occupants of the OPSC, to indicate when seat belts should be fastened. The design must provide seatbelt-type restraints for berths and must be compatible with the sleeping position during cruise conditions. A placard on each berth must require that these restraints be fastened when occupied. If compliance with any of the other requirements of these special conditions is predicated on specific head position, a placard must identify that head position.

(10) In lieu of the requirements specified in § 25.1439(a) pertaining to isolated compartments, and to provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided to occupants of an isolated galley, the design must provide the following equipment in the OPSC:

(a) At least one approved, hand-held fire extinguisher appropriate for the kinds of fires likely to occur.

(b) Two protective breathing equipment (PBE) devices, suitable for firefighting, or one PBE for each hand-held fire extinguisher, whichever is greater. All PBE devices must be approved to Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C116 or equivalent.

(c) One flashlight.

(11) The design must provide a smoke- or fire-detection system (or systems) to monitor each occupiable space within the OPSC, including those areas partitioned with curtains or doors. The design-approval holder must conduct flight tests to show compliance with this requirement. If a fire occurs, each system must provide:

(a) A visual indication to the flight deck within one minute after the start of a fire.

(b) An aural warning in the OPSC compartment.

(c) A warning in the main passenger cabin. A flight attendant must readily detect this warning, taking into consideration the locations of flight attendants throughout the main passenger compartment during various phases of flight.

(12) The design must provide a means to fight a fire. This ability can be either a built-in extinguishing system or a manual, hand-held extinguishing system.

(a) For a built-in extinguishing system:

(i) The system must have adequate capacity to suppress a fire considering the fire threat, volume of the compartment, and the ventilation rate. The system must have sufficient extinguishing agent to provide an initial knockdown and suppression environment per the minimum performance standards that have been established for the agent being used. In addition, certification flight testing will verify the acceptable duration that the suppression environment can be maintained.

(ii) If the capacity of the extinguishing system does not provide effective fire suppression that will last for the duration of flight from the farthest point in route to the nearest suitable landing site expected in service, the design-approval holder must establish an additional manual firefighting procedure. For the built-in extinguishing system, the design must establish and document the time duration for effective fire suppression in the firefighting procedures in the AFM. If the duration of time for demonstrated effective fire suppression provided by the built-in extinguishing agent will be exceeded, the firefighting procedures must instruct the crew to:

(1) Enter the OPSC at the time that demonstrated fire-suppression effectiveness will be exceeded.

(2) Check for and extinguish all residual fire.

(3) Confirm that the fire is out.

(b) For a manual, hand-held extinguishing system (designed as the sole means to fight a fire or to supplement a built-in extinguishing system of limited suppression duration) for the OPSC:

(i) The design-approval holder must include a limitation in the AFM or other suitable means requiring that crewmembers be trained in firefighting procedures.

(ii) The OPSC design must allow crewmembers equipped for firefighting to have unrestricted access to all parts of the OPSC.

(iii) The time for a crewmember on the main deck to react to the fire alarm, don the firefighting equipment, and gain access to the OPSC must not exceed the time it would take for the compartment to become filled with smoke, thus making it difficult to locate the fire source.

(iv) The design-approval holder must establish approved procedures describing methods for searching the OPSC for fire source(s). The design-approval holder must transmit these procedures to the operator for incorporation into its training programs and appropriate operational manuals.

(13) Design must provide a means to prevent hazardous quantities of smoke or extinguishing agent, originating in the OPSC, from entering any other occupiable compartment.

(a) Small quantities of smoke may penetrate from the OPSC into other occupied areas during the one-minute smoke detection time.

(b) A provision in the firefighting procedures must ensure that all doors and hatches at the OPSC outlets are closed after evacuation of the compartment and during firefighting to minimize smoke and extinguishing agent entering other occupiable compartments.

(c) All smoke entering any occupiable compartment, when access to the OPSC is open for evacuation, must dissipate within five minutes after the access to the OPSC is closed.

(d) Hazardous quantities of smoke may not enter any occupied compartment during access to manually fight a fire in the OPSC. The amount of smoke entrained by a firefighter exiting the OPSC is not considered hazardous.

(e) The design-approval holder must conduct flight tests to show compliance with this requirement.

(14) A supplemental oxygen system within the OPSC must provide the following:

(a) At least one oxygen mask for each berth in the OPSC.

(b) If the OPSC provides a destination area (such as a changing area), an oxygen mask must be readily available for each occupant who can reasonably be expected to be in the destination area, with the maximum number of required masks within the destination area being limited to the placarded maximum occupancy of the OPSC.

(c) An oxygen mask must be readily accessible to each occupant who can reasonably be expected to be moving from the main cabin into the OPSC, moving around within the OPSC, or moving from the OPSC to the main cabin.

(d) The system must provide an aural and visual alert to warn occupants of the OPSC to don oxygen masks in the event of decompression. The aural and visual alerts must activate concurrently with deployment of the oxygen masks in the passenger cabin. To compensate for sleeping occupants, the aural alert must be heard in each section of the OPSC and must sound continuously for a minimum of five minutes or until a reset switch within the OPSC is activated. A visual alert that informs occupants that they must don an oxygen mask must be visible in each section.

(e) The design must provide a means by which oxygen masks can be manually deployed from the flight deck.

(f) The design-approval holder must establish approved procedures for the OPSC in the event of decompression. The design-approval holder must transmit these procedures to the operator for incorporation into its training programs and appropriate operational manuals.

(g) The supplemental oxygen system for the OPSC must meet the same part 25 regulations as the supplemental oxygen system for the passenger cabin occupants, except for the 10 percent additional-masks requirement of § 25.1447(c)(1).

(15) The following additional requirements apply to an OPSC that are divided into several sections by the installation of curtains or partitions:

(a) The OPSC design requires a placard adjacent to each curtain that visually divides or separates, for example, for privacy purposes, the OPSC into multiple sections. The placard must require that the curtain(s) remains open when the section it creates is unoccupied. The vestibule section adjacent to the stairway is not considered a private section and, therefore, does not require a placard.

(b) For each section of the OPSC created by the installation of a curtain, the following requirements of these special conditions must be met with the curtain open or closed:

(i) No-smoking placard requirement (Special Condition 1).

(ii) Emergency illumination requirement (Special Condition 6).

(iii) Emergency alarm-system requirement (Special Condition 8).

(iv) Seatbelt-fasten signal or return-to-seat signal as applicable requirement (Special Condition 9).

(v) Smoke- or fire-detection system requirement (Special Condition 11).

(vi) Oxygen-system requirement (Special Condition 14).

(c) OPSC that are visually divided to the extent that evacuation could be adversely affected must have exit signs directing occupants to the primary stairway outlet. The design must provide exit signs in each separate section of the OPSC, except for curtained bunks, and must meet requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i). The design-approval holder may use an exit sign with reduced background area or a symbolic exit sign, as described in special condition 5a, to meet this requirement.

(d) For sections within an OPSC created by the installation of a rigid partition with a door separating the sections, the design must meet the following special conditions with the door open or closed:

(i) A secondary evacuation route from each section to the main deck, or the applicant must show that any door between the sections precludes anyone from being trapped inside a section of the compartment. The design must consider the removal of an incapacitated occupant from within this area. The design does not require a secondary evacuation route from a small room designed for only one occupant for a short time duration, such as a changing area or lavatory, but the design must consider the removal of an incapacitated occupant from within such a small room.

(ii) The design-approval holder must show any door between the sections to be openable when crowded against, even when crowding occurs at each side of the door.

(iii) The design may locate no more than one door between any seat or berth and the primary stairway door.

(iv) In each section, exit signs meeting the requirements of § 25.812(b)(1)(i), or shown to have an equivalent level of safety, must direct occupants to the primary stairway outlet. The design may use an exit sign with reduced background area, or a symbolic exit sign, as described in special condition 5a, to meet this requirement.

(v) The design must meet special conditions 1 (no-smoking placards), 6 (emergency illumination), 8 (emergency alarm system), 9 (fasten-seatbelt signal or return-to-seat signal as applicable), 11 (smoke- or fire-detection system), and 14 (oxygen system) with the OPSC door open or closed.

(vi) The design must meet special conditions 7 (two-way voice communication) and 10 (emergency firefighting and protective equipment) independently for each separate section, except for lavatories or other small areas that are not intended to be occupied for extended periods of time.

(16) If a waste-disposal receptacle is fitted in the OPSC, it must be equipped with an automatic fire extinguisher that meets the performance requirements of § 25.854(b).

(17) Materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces applied to the materials) must comply with the flammability requirements of § 25.853 as amended by amendment 25-116 or later. Seat cushions and mattresses must comply with the flammability requirements of § 25.853(c) as amended by amendment 25-116 or later, and the test requirements of part 25, appendix F, part II, or other equivalent methods.

(18) The addition of a lavatory within the OPSC would require the lavatory to meet the same requirements as those for a lavatory installed on the main deck, except with regard to special condition 11 for smoke detection.

(19) The design must completely enclose each stowage compartment in the OPSC, except for underseat compartments for occupant convenience. All enclosed stowage compartments within the OPSC that are not limited to stowage of emergency equipment or airplane-supplied equipment (i.e., bedding) must meet the design criteria described in the table below. Enclosed stowage compartments greater than 200 ft.3 in interior volume are not addressed by this special condition. The in-flight accessibility of very large, enclosed, stowage compartments and the subsequent impact on the crewmembers' ability to effectively reach any part of the compartment with the contents of a hand-held fire-extinguishing system, will require additional fire-protection considerations similar to those required for inaccessible compartments such as Class C cargo compartments.

(20) The AFM must state that this airplane is to be operated for private use only, not for hire, not for common carriage.

The Coast Guard was notified by the Cambridge Power Boat Racing Association, Inc. on January 30, 2018, through submission of a marine event application, that due to a scheduling change, a change of dates is necessary to the dates previously published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the annually scheduled Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race, as listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501. The date of the event is changed to May 19, 2018 and May 20, 2018. The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race regulated area from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 19 and from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 20, 2018. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Cambridge Classic Powerboat Race, which encompasses portions of Hambrooks Bay and the Choptank River, at Cambridge, MD.

The Coast Guard was notified by NAS Patuxent River on February 14, 2018 through submission of a marine event application that, due to a scheduling change, a change of dates is necessary to the dates previously published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the biennially scheduled NAS Patuxent River Air Show, as listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501. The date of the event is changed to from May 31, 2018 through June 3, 2018. The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the NAS Patuxent River Air Show regulated area from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day from May 31, 2018 through June 3, 2018. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the NAS Patuxent River Air Show, which encompasses portions of the Patuxent River and Chesapeake Bay, at Patuxent River, MD.

This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these events. As specified in § 100.501(c), during the enforcement periods, the Coast Guard patrol commander or designated marine event patrol may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. Vessel operators may request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the Coast Guard patrol commander on VHF-FM channel 16.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.501(f) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of these enforcement periods on scene and via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

On December 15, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Wappoo Creek, Charleston, SC in the Federal Register (82 FR 59562). We received zero comments on this rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. The SR 171/700 (Wappoo Cut) Bridge across Wappoo Creek (AICW), mile 470.8, at Charleston, SC is a double leaf bascule bridge that provides a vertical clearance of 33 feet in the closed position at mean high water. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.911(d), the regulation provides three different seasonal operating schedules throughout the year. The modification will simplify the current operating schedule, allow for a more consistent and efficient operation of the bridge and provide relief to vehicle traffic congestion while meeting the reasonable needs of navigation.

The Coast Guard provided a 30 day comment period and no comments were received.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability for vessels to transit the bridge once an hour during the day, except during the allowed closure times. Vessels in distress, public vessels of the United States and tugs with tows would be allowed to pass at any time.

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

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

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

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

No comments were received; therefore, no changes were made to the regulatory text.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the “For Further Information Contact” section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The New Jersey Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the U.S. Route 37 (Mathis) Bridge across the Barnegat Bay, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, mile 14.1, at Seaside Heights, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate routine maintenance. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 12:01 a.m. on April 1, 2018, to 8 p.m. on April 16, 2018. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.733(c).

The Barnegat Bay, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On January 9, 2018, and February 2, 2018, the Coast Guard was notified by the event sponsor that a change of location was necessary to that currently listed for the annually scheduled National Cherry Blossom Festival fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.506. Entry (b)(1) in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506 for Recurring Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone as a circular shaped area that includes all waters of the Upper Potomac River, within 170 yard radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′20.3″ N, longitude 077°01′17.5″ W, located within the Washington Channel, at Washington Harbor, DC. The location of the fireworks display for this year is changed approximately 1,000 yards upstream and its size is reduced, to include all waters of the Washington Channel within 200 feet of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′45.49″ N, longitude 077°01′41.06″ W, located in Washington, DC. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 200 feet of the fireworks barge.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to provide a sufficient comment period and maintain the event as scheduled for April 7, 2018.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this April 7, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone on the Washington Channel near The Wharf DC. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on April 7, 2018, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on April 8, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Washington Channel within 200 feet of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°52′45.49″ N, longitude 077°01′41.06″ W, located at Washington, DC. The duration of the safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, time-of-year, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Although vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, the impact will be for less than 2 hours during the late evening when vessel traffic in Washington Channel is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 2 hours that will prohibit entry within a portion of the Washington Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

Background

The Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 9, 2018, (83 FR 995-997) to amend the DMM to add a new alternative Move Update method, Green & Secure, for mailers who enter eligible letter- and flat-size pieces of First-Class Mail® and USPS Marketing Mail® (formerly Standard Mail®) that meet the requirements for presort, Basic automation, or Full-Service automation mailings.

The Postal Service received many insightful comments and questions from the mailing community in response to the proposed rule of January 9, 2018. In response to those comments, the Postal Service incorporates the following changes into this final rule, and notes that aside from these changes, Green & Secure has not changed in substance from the proposed rule of January 9, 2018:

 The comments revealed that adding Green & Secure as an Alternative Move Update method in the DMM caused confusion regarding whether Green & Secure pieces would have to be updated consistent with the Move Update standard in DMM 602.5.1. The Postal Service, therefore, has recast Green & Secure as an option under Address Change Service using the existing Change Service Requested Service Type IDs (STID) to clarify that the Move Update standard applies to these mailpieces; mailers must continue to update their mailing lists using at least one of the USPS-approved Move Update methods listed in DMM 602.5.2. Accordingly, this final rule includes changes to DMM 507.4.2.2 instead of DMM 602.5.2 as had been announced in the proposed rule.

 Under the forthcoming Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process (AQCMAP), a mailer's total error percentage is the ratio of mailpieces with change of address (COA) errors to the mailer's total Move Update Eligible Piece count in the calendar month. Green & Secure mailpieces will be automatically excluded from the count of mailpieces with a COA error (the numerator) but included in the mailer's total Move Update Eligible Piece count (the denominator).

 Implementation of Green & Secure will begin in March 2018. In addition, assessment under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process has been delayed until April 2018 for March errors.

In sum, as discussed in further detail herein and in the proposed rule of January 9, 2018, mailpieces bearing a STID for ACS Change Service Requested, with or without Secure Destruction, will now fall under the Green & Secure option. Moreover, the Postal Service clarifies that mailpieces bearing these STID types must be updated in accordance with the Move Update standard in DMM 602.5.1, but will not be subject to assessment under the Move Update Verification, Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process in DMM 602.5.3.

The Postal Service received three sets of comments in response to the proposed rule of January 9, 2018. The Postal Service appreciates all of the comments that were provided by the mailing industry. The proceeding comments and replies can serve as frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help clarify the Green & Secure Address Change Service option. The mailers' comments and corresponding Postal Service responses are outlined as follows:

Mailer Comment: Will mailers that use Green & Secure be exempt from USPIS audits or assessments?

USPS Response: The Inspection Service will not initiate Move Update investigations unless non-compliance from a mailer has been demonstrated to be a routine and repeatable practice despite an opportunity, through communication from Mail Entry with the mailer, to correct the practice.

Mailer Comment: We propose deferring the imposition of assessments 90 days from when the Mailer Scorecard changes have been updated by the USPS.

USPS Response: The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process assessments will begin in April 2018 using March 2018 data. In addition, mailpieces utilizing the Green & Secure Address Change Service option, will be excluded from assessments beginning in March 2018.

Comments from two responders are as follows:

Mailer Comment: Is the Secure Destruction process ready to support the increased volume and what additional steps will USPS take to ensure Secure Destruction will not overwhelm and degrade the quality of this service?

USPS Response: The Postal Service launched Secure Destruction for First-Class Mail letters in November 2014. The Green & Secure option will not change the operational procedures of Secure Destruction; as a result, the Postal Service does not expect Green & Secure to adversely impact quality.

Mailer Comment: Why did USPS not use a unique Green & Secure STID? We are concerned about the ability to measure the effectiveness of this new method.

USPS Response: The Postal Service evaluated the need for additional STIDs and found that the ACS Change Service Requested Service Type IDs can be used to effectively track and measure the pieces. Therefore, new STIDs are not necessary.

Mailer Comment: Will mailers using the new Green & Secure method now risk an increased COA error rate and exceed the threshold?

USPS Response: No. Green & Secure volume will be included in the total Move Update Eligible Pieces metric, which is used in the denominator of the AQCMAP error percentage calculation, and excluded from the count of mailpieces with COA errors in the numerator. Including the volume in the denominator of the calculation will decrease the mailer's risk of exceeding the error threshold.

Mailer Comment: The Postal Service should clarify whether a mailer using the Green & Secure method must still comply with the requirements of ACS.

USPS Response: Mailers using Green & Secure must comply with the requirements of ACS (i.e., they must use the COA notices received under ACS to update their addresses) if that is the only USPS-approved Move Update Method that is used. Mailers may use another USPS-approved Move Update Method listed in DMM 602.5.2 to update their addresses even if they receive COA notices under ACS.

Mailer Comment: We believe that there should be no new registration method required to incorporate Green & Secure and the approval processes for Green & Secure are unclear.

USPS Response: There are no new registration or approval requirements to incorporate Green & Secure Address Change Service option. As is the case today for ACS registration, registration for Green & Secure will be required only when mailers:

Request Secure Destruction for First-Class Mail (enrollment required to get Secure Destruction Data via EPF).

Enter mail that is not Full-Service (enrollment required to get Basic = OneCode ACS data via EPF).

Enter mail that is both Full-Service & Basic, which does not qualify for No-fee ACS (enrollment required to get ACS data via EPF. SingleSource ACS fulfillment is available to combine Full-Service and OneCode ACS).

Request Change Service Requested Option 2 for USPS Marketing Mail (enrollment required for invoicing the Forwarded Fee).

Mailer Comment: We urge that all publications applicable to Move Update be updated to reflect this new option to ensure consistency throughout.

USPS Response: All applicable documentation and publications will be updated to reflect the new Green & Secure option. The Guide to Move Update is currently being updated to include the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process and the Green & Secure Address Change Service option, as well as other modifications throughout the document.

Mailer Comment: The FRN does not clearly explain what Move Update method to indicate on the mail submission documents.

USPS Response: The Green & Secure option is considered an ACS method for purposes of indicating a method on the postage statement. Mailers should select ACS as their Move Update method on the Postage Statement if this is the method being utilized to meet the Move Update requirement.

Mailer Comment: Does the Green & Secure process impact future modifications to the Census Threshold?

USPS Response: The Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error threshold of 0.5 percent was set at an achievable level through a statistical analysis of quality for all mailings submitted during a defined period. For each program, the analysis covered all applicable mailer types and excluded outlier data. If the threshold is reevaluated in the future, Green & Secure mailpieces would naturally be included in the analysis because they will be counted in the denominator of the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process error percentage.

Mailer Comment: We request that any solution continues to allow mailers to accurately measure and compare the quality of various mailings by providing data feedback.

USPS Response: As described in the proposed rule, the Postal Service will provide data feedback through the Mailer Scorecard. The total number of mailpieces using the Green & Secure option will be reported under the eDoc Submitter CRID through a dedicated field on the Mailer Scorecard. In addition, if a mailpiece is associated with a COA that is between 95 days and 18 months old, and the address has not been updated, a COA warning for the associated IMb would be logged and allocated under the CRID of the eDoc submitter in the Mailer Scorecard.

Mailer Comment: It is unclear whether mailers will still need to comply with the USPS Move Update requirement stated in DMM section 602.5.1.a.

USPS Response: Green & Secure is an Address Change Service option under which mailpieces must be updated pursuant to the Move Update standard in DMM 602.5.1. The Green & Secure option exempts qualifying pieces from assessment through the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. Mailers participating in the Green & Secure option must update their mailpieces with the updated address using at least one USPS approved method even though any Green & Secure mailpieces with COA errors will not count as such under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. As noted in response to a previous comment, Green & Secure does not exempt mailers from USPIS audits or assessments. However, the Inspection Service will not initiate Move Update investigations unless non-compliance from a mailer has been demonstrated to be a routine and repeatable practice despite an opportunity, through communications from Mail Entry with the mailer, to correct the practice.

Pursuant to Postal Service regulations, compliance with the Move Update standard is a basic eligibility requirement for mailers of all USPS Marketing Mail and First-Class Mail letters and flats using commercial automation and presort rates. The Move Update standard requires mailers to update addresses for which a change of address (COA) order exists within a specified period of time. By requiring mailers to comply with the Move Update standard, the Postal Service aims to improve address quality and ensure mailpieces reach their intended recipients, which benefits both the Postal Service and its customers. The Move Update standard also is intended to reduce mail processing and delivery costs for the Postal Service.

Today, mailers can meet the Move Update standard using the USPS-approved methods of Address Change Service (ACSTM), NCOALink®, or Ancillary Service Endorsements. In addition, mailers of First-Class Mail may apply to use one of two alternative methods, 99 Percent Accuracy or Legal Restraint, which are available under the following limited circumstances:

99 Percent Accuracy Method: This method is available to mailers who enter First-Class Mail and demonstrate that their internal list management maintains address quality at 99 percent or greater accuracy for COAs.

Legal Restraint Method: This method is available to mailers who enter First-Class Mail pieces and demonstrate that a legal restriction prevents them from updating their customer's address without direct contact from the customer.

The overarching goal of the Move Update standard is to reduce the incidence of undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) mail, which is costly for the Postal Service because UAA pieces must be forwarded, returned, or discarded, and costly for mailers because these pieces fail to reach their intended recipients. The Postal Service incurs the most costs returning pieces, while discarding UAA pieces imposes the lowest cost. The 2017 per-piece cost for each disposition type (Automation and presort FCM only) is shown below:

First-Class Mail UAA pieces represent most of the Postal Service's costly return-to-sender volume; a First-Class Mail mailpiece must be returned-to-sender if it is associated with a COA record that is more than 12 months old, or if it is otherwise identified as UAA as specified in DMM 507.1.5.1. In 2017, the Postal Service discarded only 3 percent of First-Class Mail UAA pieces; in comparison, 98.5 percent of USPS Marketing Mail UAA pieces were discarded. The reason for this discrepancy is that UAA USPS Marketing Mail pieces are destroyed unless the mailers pays for forwarding or return after requesting those services using an ancillary service endorsement.

While the focus of the Postal Service's Move Update program has been to reduce the amount of UAA mail, the Postal Service recognizes that not all UAA mail can be eliminated. The Postal Service wants to reduce the cost to the Postal Service of the remaining UAA mail. The Postal Service is therefore introducing the Green & Secure option, which utilizes the existing Change Service Requested STIDs under the ACS Program. This will both reduce the volume of return-to-sender mail and reduce mailers' risk of assessment through the AQCMAP, a new method of verifying that mailers have updated their addresses using a USPS-approved Move Update method, which started March 1, 2018. An exemption from AQCMAP fees will provide a needed incentive for more mailers to mark their mail for destruction rather than return to the mailer.

Green & Secure will be a USPS-approved Address Change Service option for First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail letter and flat-size pieces that meet the requirements for presort, Basic automation, and Full-Service automation mailings. This option will utilize the existing ACS Change Service Requested STIDs. Under Green & Secure, mailers have two options for mailpiece disposal; recycle the mailpiece or securely destroy the mailpiece. Recycling of mailpieces is available for First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail letters and flats. Secure Destruction is currently available for First-Class Mail letters. If the mailer is using Address Change Service as the Move Update method, updated address information received via ACS for undeliverable Green & Secure pieces must be used to update the mailing list. Mailers participating in the Green & Secure option may also use another approved method listed in DMM 602.5.2 to meet the Move Update standard.

The ACS Change Service Requested STID will be available for use on First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail pieces. Mailers must enroll for ACS notice fulfillment, unless using a Full-Service ACS requested STID, with the Postal Service ACS Department at the National Customer Support Center in Memphis, Tennessee, (877-640-0724 (Option 1) or [email protected]). First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail pieces that have an ACS Change Service Requested STID in the Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) and are identified as UAA will be discarded and recycled rather than returned-to-sender.

The Secure Destruction STID will continue to be available for use on First-Class Mail pieces only. First-Class Mail mailers already participating in Secure Destruction service and utilizing an approved Secure Destruction STID will continue to have their UAA mailpieces destroyed and recycled in a secure manner. Secure Destruction participation requires mailers to register their Mailer ID with the Postal Service's ACS Department prior to using the Secure Destruction STID in their IMbs. Under Secure Destruction, mailpieces are shredded by Postal Service employees at Postal Service facilities, which renders the pieces unreadable prior to recycling. Secure Destruction shreds mailpieces to a size that is more stringent than the standards set forth by the National Association for Information Destruction and common industry practice in the United States for documents with sensitive and/or confidential information.

For mailpieces bearing a STID for ACS Change Service Requested, with or without Secure Destruction, the Postal Service will provide mailers with an electronic ACS notification indicating that the piece is UAA. Green & Secure will continue the process of providing First-Class Mail mailers that use the Secure Destruction STID with an additional electronic notification to indicate when and where the mailpiece was processed and securely shredded.

Green & Secure will continue to provide mailers with two disposition options for their mailpieces:

Option 1: Postal Service discards or securely destroys all UAA mailpieces.

Option 2: Postal Service provides forwarding if the mailpiece corresponds with a valid COA record that is less than 1-year old. All other UAA mail is discarded or securely destroyed, subject to the corresponding conditions described in DMM Section 507.1.0.

While there is no additional charge for forwarding of First-Class Mail, USPS Marketing Mail that is forwarded under Option 2 will be charged the appropriate per piece forwarding fee for the mail shape.

In August 2017, the Postal Service gained regulatory approval from the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for the AQCMAP in PRC Docket No. R2017-7 (available publicly at prc.gov). The Postal Service followed-up the PRC's approval with a final rule adopting conforming changes to the DMM that was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2017 (82 FR 49123-49128). As previously stated, the Postal Service has delayed implementation, and will begin verifying and assessing mailers under this new verification method in April 2018 for COA errors incurred in March 2018. Mailpieces using the Green & Secure Address Change Service option will not be assessed under the Address Quality Census Measurement and Assessment Process. These mailpieces will be included in the mailer's total Move Update Eligible Piece count, which is the denominator in the calculation of the mailer's total error percentage in the AQCMAP. While mailpieces with COA errors will not be included in the numerator in this calculation, Move Update validations will still be performed on Green & Secure pieces to provide visibility into mail quality, and the results of the Green & Secure validations will be reported separately in the Mailer Scorecard.

The Mailer Scorecard is currently available to mailers, providing data that allow mailers to gauge address quality on their mailpieces. Under Green & Secure, the Mailer Scorecard will continue to be a valuable tool in assisting mailers to improve their address quality and update their address in accord with the Move Update standard. The total number of mailpieces using the Green & Secure option will be reported under the eDoc Submitter CRID through a dedicated field on the Mailer Scorecard. In addition, if a mailpiece is associated with a COA that is between 95 days and 18 months old, and the address has not been updated, a COA warning for the associated IMb will be logged and allocated under the CRID of the eDoc submitter in the Mailer Scorecard. As noted previously, the total number of mailpieces using the Green & Secure STIDs will also be included in the Move Update eligible pieces metric on the Mailer Scorecard.

Mailers will be able to use the Green & Secure Address Change Service option when they:

Use a unique Basic or Full Service IMb on mailings of letter- and flat-size pieces for First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail;

Use eDoc to submit mailing information and include piece level detail (by piece or piece range);

Contact the Postal Service's ACS Department, for non-Full-Service mailers who wish to use a Basic ACS Change Service Requested STID, and all mailers seeking to use the Secure Destruction STID.

The Postal Service is including existing Change Service Requested STIDs under the Green & Secure option available through Address Change Service. Mailers may participate in the Green & Secure option as follows:

Mailers will utilize an ACS Change Service Requested STID on First-Class Mail or USPS Marketing Mail, or an ACS Change Service Requested Secure Destruction STID on First-Class Mail.

Mailpieces bearing these STIDs will be counted toward the mailer's total Move Update Eligible Pieces, which is the denominator in the calculation of the error percentage in the AQCMAP, but will not be included in the numerator or otherwise subject to the Move Update assessment charges even if the pieces have a COA error.

Mailpieces bearing these STIDs that are UAA will be discarded or securely destroyed by the Postal Service; electronic notification and information via the Mailer Scorecard will be provided.

Once qualifying mailings are processed on mail processing equipment, the data from the mailpieces will be reconciled with eDoc. These results will be available on the Business Customer Gateway and displayed on the Electronic Verification tab of the Mailer Scorecard, which will be easily accessible at https://gateway.usps.com/eAdmin/view/signin. Mailers will be able to review the Mailer Scorecard and corresponding detailed reports to identify any anomalies or issues. To resolve Mailer Scorecard irregularities, mailers will continue to be able to contact the PostalOne! Help Desk at 800-522-9085 or their local Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU).

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

The Sheridan NAA encompasses the City of Sheridan, Wyoming, and was designated nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B), following enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On June 23, 1994, the EPA approved Sheridan's moderate area plan including reasonably available control measures (RACM), an attainment demonstration, emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and control and contingency requirements.

The factual and legal background for this action is discussed in detail in our January 29, 2018 (83 FR 4015) proposed approval of the Sheridan Limited Maintenance Plan and concurrent redesignation of the Sheridan NAA to attainment of the NAAQS for PM10.

The EPA received one comment on the rulemaking and after reviewing the comment, the EPA has determined that the comment is outside the scope of our proposed action and fails to identify any material issue necessitating a response.

The EPA is making the determination that the Sheridan NAA has attained the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 µg/m3. This determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014-2016. Additionally, the EPA is approving the Sheridan NAA LMP submitted on June 2, 2017, as meeting the applicable CAA requirements, and we have determined the LMP to be sufficient to provide for maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS over the course of the 10-year maintenance period out to 2027. The EPA is also approving the Sheridan LMP as meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93, subpart A. Lastly, this rule redesignates the Sheridan NAA from nonattainment to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this announcement affect me?

You may be interested in this announcement if you manufacture (including import), sell, supply, offer for sale, test, or work with the certification of hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, particleboard, and/or products containing these composite wood materials in the United States. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document is of interest to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing (NAICS code 3212).

• Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing (NAICS code 321991).

• Prefabricated wood building manufacturing (NAICS code 321992).

• Furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS code 337).

• Furniture merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42321).

• Lumber, plywood, millwork, and wood panel merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42331).

• Other construction material merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423390), e.g., merchant wholesale distributors of manufactured homes (i.e., mobile homes) and/or prefabricated buildings.

• Furniture stores (NAICS code 4421).

• Building material and supplies dealers (NAICS code 4441).

• Manufactured (mobile) home dealers (NAICS code 45393).

• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).

• Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).

• Recreational vehicle (RV) dealers (NAICS code 441210).

• Recreational vehicle merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 423110).

• Engineering services (NAICS code 541330).

• Testing laboratories (NAICS code 541380).

• Administrative management and general management consulting services (NAICS code 541611).

• All other professional, scientific, and technical services (NAICS code 541990).

• All other support services (NAICS code 561990).

• Business associations (NAICS code 813910).

• Professional organizations (NAICS code 813920).

If you have any questions regarding this announcement, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The docket for this announcement, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0244, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

On February 16, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying EPA's cross-motion for summary judgment in the case of Sierra Club and A Community Voice-Louisiana vs. Scott Pruitt, Case No. 4:17-cv-6293-JSW (Ref. 1). However, the Court stayed the February 16, 2018 order until March 9, 2018, so that the parties could work on a joint submission on the compliance issues related to the order. On March 9, 2018, the plaintiffs, EPA, and representatives of several industry groups filed a joint proposed stipulation and proposed order (Refs. 2, 3). After reviewing the joint proposed stipulation and proposed order, on March 13, 2018, the Court issued an order pursuant to the stipulation and good cause shown that lifted the February 16, 2018 stay on the Court's decision as of June 1, 2018, which results in the compliance date for emission standards, recordkeeping, and labeling (i.e., the manufactured-by date or import-by date) being June 1, 2018, rather than December 12, 2018 (Ref. 4). EPA is making available the February 16, 2018 order, the joint proposed stipulation, the proposed order, and the March 13, 2018 order in the supporting documents section of the docket for this announcement.

By June 1, 2018, and until March 22, 2019, regulated composite wood panels and finished products containing such composite wood panels that are manufactured (in the United States) or imported (into the United States) must be certified as compliant with either the TSCA Title VI or the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) Phase II emission standards, which are set at identical levels, by a third-party certifier (TPC) approved by CARB and recognized by EPA. Previously, these products were required to be TSCA Title VI compliant by December 12, 2018.

Until March 22, 2019, regulated products certified as compliant with the CARB ATCM Phase II emission standards must be labeled as compliant with either the TSCA Title VI or the CARB ATCM Phase II emission standards.

After March 22, 2019, CARB-approved TPCs must comply with additional accreditation requirements in order to remain recognized as an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC and to continue certifying products as TSCA Title VI compliant. Regulated products manufactured in or imported into the United States after March 22, 2019 may not rely on the CARB reciprocity of 40 CFR 770.15(e) and must be certified and labeled as TSCA Title VI compliant by an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC with all of the required accreditations.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: