Federal Register Vol. 83, No.66,

The FDIC is correcting a drafting error regarding a provision of the deposit insurance assessment regulations that governs the use of assessment credits for small banks.1 Under the FDIC's assessment regulations, the FDIC will provide small banks with assessment credits for the portion of their regular assessments that contribute to the increase in the DIF reserve ratio from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent. The regulatory text further states that the FDIC will apply assessment credits to a small bank's deposit insurance assessments for assessment periods in which the reserve ratio of the DIF exceeds 1.38 percent. Consistent with the preamble language of the final rule in which this provision was adopted (the Minimum Reserve Ratio final rule 2 ), the regulatory text should state that small bank assessment credits will be applied for assessment periods in which the DIF reserve ratio is at least 1.38 percent—that is, at or above 1.38 percent and not just above 1.38 percent.

The FDIC also is making a technical edit to update a cross reference in the same subsection. Currently, the subsection refers to section 327.9. However, as of June 30, 2016, § 327.9 ceased to be in effect, and the operative section is now § 327.16. As a result, the reference is being updated to refer to § 327.16.

The Loan Mix Index (LMI), which measures the relative riskiness of a bank's loan portfolio, is one of the measures used in the assessment regulations to calculate an established small bank's 3 assessment rate.4 The LMI includes Loans to Foreign Governments as a loan category.

Effective March 31, 2017, as part of an initiative to reduce Call Report burden for community banks, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) added a new and streamlined Call Report form (FFIEC 051) for banks that have less than $1 billion in total assets and no foreign offices. The FFIEC also revised the general Call Report form (FFIEC 041) for banks with no foreign offices. As part of that initiative, the FFIEC removed the line item for reporting loans to foreign governments from Call Report form FFIEC 041 and excluded the item from the new Call Report form FFIEC 051. The Call Report form for banks with both foreign and domestic offices (FFIEC 031), however, still includes a line item for reporting loans to foreign governments.

Because most small banks are no longer able to report these loans as a separate item on the Call Report, the FDIC is removing Loans to Foreign Governments from the calculation of the LMI in the established small bank deposit insurance pricing methodology.

The FDIC is making technical amendments to reinsert PCA capital ratios and ratio thresholds used to define capital categories (i.e., well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, under-capitalized) in the assessment regulations. The definitions of capital categories for deposit insurance assessment purposes were inadvertently deleted in a 2016 rulemaking, known as the Small Bank Pricing rule.5 Currently the deposit insurance assessment system uses capital categories to calculate two ratios that affect assessment rates.6

Discussion

We issued AD 2018-02-05, Amendment 39-19158 (83 FR 3064, January 23, 2018), (“AD 2018-02-05”), for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-151, PA-28-160, PA-28-161, PA-28-180, PA-28-181, PA-28-236, PA-28-201T, PA-28R-180, PA-28R-200, PA-28R-201, PA-28R-201T, PA-28RT-201, and PA-28RT-201T airplanes. AD 2018-02-05 required inspecting the fuel tank selector cover to verify the left and right fuel tank selector placards are located at the 12:00 and 3:00 clock positions, respectively, and replacing those that are improperly located with new placards. AD 2018-02-05 resulted from a quality control issue that resulted in the installation of fuel tank selector covers with the placement of the left and right fuel tank selector placards installed in reverse. We issued AD 2018-02-05 to prevent fuel management error. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fuel starvation and loss of engine power in flight.

Since we issued AD 2018-02-05, we have determined that the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate will be allowed to perform the preflight check of the fuel tank selector placards.

We reviewed Piper Aircraft, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 1309A, dated March 6, 2018. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a preflight check of the fuel tank selector cover to verify the left and right fuel tank selector placards are located in the proper positions, and replacing those that are improperly located with a new placard. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires doing a preflight check of the fuel tank selector cover to verify the left and right fuel tank selector placards are located at the proper positions and replacing those that are improperly located with new placards. The preflight check required in this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

The FAA previously determined that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of AD 2018-02-05. This AD is being issued to relieve the maintenance requirements found in 2018-02-05, by changing the inspection of the fuel tank selector cover to a preflight check, while also allowing for various fuel selector clocking configurations. Because the substance of AD 2018-02-05 remains the same, but for the relieving aspects noted in this AD, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0245 and product identifier 2018-CE-012-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 17,957 airplanes, of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Since this AD allows the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate to perform the required preflight check of the fuel tank selector placards, there is a reduction in cost associated with this AD.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the preflight check of the left and right fuel tank selector placards for proper installation inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (82 FR 28794; June 26, 2017) for Docket No. FAA-2016-9378 to remove the Class D and Class E airspace at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK, and Enid Vance AFB, OK, and establish and amend Class D and E airspace at Enid Woodring Regional Airport, OK, and Vance AFB, OK, to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at these airports. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The description for the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, has been updated to include the radial and width information for the extensions that was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM.

The description for the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Vance AFB, OK, has been updated to include the radial and width information for the extensions that was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM.

The airspace description for the Class D airspace at Vance AFB, OK, has been simplified to provide a clearer description of the airspace.

The airspace description for the Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Vance AFB, OK, has been simplified to provide a clearer description of the airspace.

The eastern boundary for the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface for Enid, OK, has been changed from “8.7 miles east and west of Vance AFB” to “9.1 miles east and 8.7 miles west of Vance AFB” to fully contain the new southern Class E airspace area designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface areas at Enid Woodring Regional Airport within this airspace. Additionally, the exclusionary language in the airspace description is no longer required and has been removed.

Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Vance AFB are being updated to coincide with a recent change to the FAA aeronautical database.

Except for the changes noted above, the actions in this final rule are the same as published in the NPRM.

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

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

Removing the Class D airspace at Enid Vance AFB, OK;

Removing the Class D airspace at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK;

Establishing Class D airspace at Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, within a 4.5-mile radius of the airport;

Establishing Class D airspace at Vance AFB, OK, within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport;

Amending the Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.5-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) of Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, removing the airspace within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, and removing references to Vance AFB from the airspace description;

Establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 5.1-mile radius of Vance AFB, OK;

Removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Enid Vance AFB, OK;

Removing the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Enid Woodring Municipal Airport, OK;

Establishing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Enid Woodring Regional Airport, Enid, OK, within 2.4 miles each side of the 347° radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending from the 4.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the airport, and within 2.4 miles each side of the 177° radial of the Woodring VOR/DME extending from the 4.5-mile radius to 7 miles south of the airport;

Establishing Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Vance AFB, OK, with a segment 1.3 miles each side of the 188° radial of the Vance VORTAC extending from the 5.1-mile radius to 6.1 miles south of the airport; and

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Enid, OK, within 9.1 miles east (increased from 8.7 miles) and 8.7 miles east of Vance AFB, and within a 7-mile radius (increasing from a 6.6-mile radius) of Enid Woodring Regional Airport, removing the Woodring VOR/DME extensions, and updating the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

The FAA has determined that due to the differing operating hours of the two airports, the airspace descriptions should be separated for safety and management of IFR operations at these airports. Also, after an airspace review of the Enid Woodring Regional Airport, the FAA found airspace redesign was necessary at Enid Woodring Regional Airport to accommodate new instrument procedures at the airport and for the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it makes editorial corrections to an existing Class B airspace description to maintain accuracy.

The St. Louis Class B airspace area was established as a “Terminal Control Area (TCA)” on January 1, 1974 (38 FR 31286, November 13, 1973). In 1993, as part of the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 FR 65638, December 17, 1991), the term “terminal control area” was replaced by “Class B airspace area.” When the St. Louis TCA was established, the airspace was designed using the latitude/longitude position of the ASR antenna on the St. Louis International Airport as the center point. In 2006, the FAA amended the, then, St. Louis Class B airspace to ensure containment of large, turbine-powered aircraft operations to and from the “new” Runway 11/29 at the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (71 FR 7848, February 15, 2006). At the same time, the Class B airspace was reconfigured to use the Cardinal VOR/DME as the center point.

As part of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operating Network (VOR MON) program1 , the Cardinal VOR was initially identified as a candidate VOR for discontinuance and is now planned for decommissioning on November 8, 2018. So there will be no change to the existing charted boundaries of the St. Louis Class B airspace area on Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aeronautical charts, the FAA is retaining the same geographic latitude/longitude coordinates of the Cardinal VOR/DME location as the center point for the Class B airspace. To accomplish this, all references to the Cardinal VOR/DME in the St. Louis Class B airspace description (as published in FAA Order 7400.11B) are replaced by “Point of Origin.” This practice is consistent with other Class B airspace locations that do not have a suitable navigation aid located on the airport.

Additionally, the FAA is making several other administrative updates to the Class B description to enhance the accuracy of the description and to clearly define each of the sub-areas that make up the Class B airspace area.

Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace designations listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by editing the description of the St. Louis, MO, Class B airspace (as published in FAA Order 7400.11B) to remove references to the “Cardinal VOR/DME” and replace them with “Point of Origin” for defining the center point of the airspace. The Point of Origin uses the same geographic latitude/longitude coordinates of the Cardinal VOR/DME location. The FAA is taking this action so that the currently charted boundaries of the Class B airspace area are not affected by the planned decommissioning of the Cardinal VOR/DME.

The Class B airspace description is also edited to update the “Lambert-St. Louis International Airport” name to “St. Louis Lambert International Airport” and the “St. Charles Municipal Airport” name to “St. Charles County Smartt Airport.” Additionally, the geographic coordinates for the St. Louis Lambert International Airport ARP are updated from “lat. 38°44′50″ N., long. 90°21′41″ W.” to “lat. 38°44′55″ N., long. 90°22′12″ W.”; the geographic coordinates for the St. Charles County Smartt Airport ARP are updated from “lat. 38°50′55″ N., long. 90°30′00″ W.” to “lat. 38°55′47″ N., long. 90°25′48″ W.”; the geographic coordinates for the Creve Coeur Airport ARP are updated from “lat. 38°43′36″ N., long. 90°30′30″ W.” to “lat. 38°43′38″ N., long. 90°30′30″ W.”; and the geographic coordinates for the St. Louis Lambert International Airport ILS Runway 30L Localizer are updated from “lat. 38°45′17″ N., long. 90°22′52″ W.” to “lat. 38°45′19″ N., long. 90°22′56″ W.” These airport name and geographic coordinate updates are made to match the data currently contained in the FAA's aeronautical database.

Lastly, the Class B airspace description is also edited to describe each existing sub-area as an independent area to improve the clarity of the Class B airspace area description overall.

Because this action is a minor editorial change that does not alter the currently charted boundaries, altitudes, or ATC procedures for the St. Louis Lambert International Airport, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C § 553(b) are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending the description of the St. Louis, MO, Class B airspace area by changing the references for defining the center point of the airspace from the Cardinal VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) to “Point of Origin” due to the planned decommissioning of the Cardinal, MO, VOR/DME, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5.a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. This airspace action is an editorial change only and is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 9181, March 5, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2014-0839 amending Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Penn Valley Airport, Selinsgrove, PA. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified a clerical error in the legal description of the airport. This action corrects the geographic coordinates from '(Lat. 40°49′16″ N., long. 76°51′551″ W.)'; to '(Lat. 40°49′16″ N., long. 76°51′51″ W.)'.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of March 5, 2018 (83 FR 9181) FR Doc. FAA-2014-0839, Amendment of Class E Airspace for Penn Valley Airport, Selinsgrove, PA, is corrected as follows:

Background

In 2012, BIS established the temporary classification ECCN 0Y521 series (encompassing ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521, and 0E521) to identify items that warrant control on the Commerce Control List (CCL) because the items provide at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or for foreign policy reasons, but are not yet identified in an existing ECCN (77 FR 22191; April 13, 2012).

The license requirements and policies for the ECCN 0Y521 series appear in § 742.6(a)(7) of the EAR, and items classified under the series appear in supplement No. 5 to part 774. Consistent with the procedure established in the April 13, 2012, rule, the Department of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Departments of Defense and State and in consultation with the Department of Energy, determined that targets made of or containing lithium “specially designed” for the production of tritium by insertion in the core of a nuclear reactor (“targets”) and the related “development” and “production” technology met the criteria for inclusion in the series. Controls on the targets and related technologies under 0Y521 series ECCNs 0A521 and 0E521, respectively, were published in an interim final rule, with request for comments, on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52326). The items were controlled for regional stability (RS) Column 1 reasons to all destinations except Canada, and a case-by-case review policy applied to license applications. The only license exception available for these items was License Exception GOV (Governments, international organizations, international inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the International Space Station (GOV)), which applies to all ECCN 0Y521 items if within the scope of §  740.11(b)(2)(ii) (Exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) made by or consigned to a department or agency of the U.S. Government), as provided in §  740.2(a)(14). See also supplement No. 5 to part 774. BIS did not receive any comments in response to the August 8, 2016 rule.

Subsequent to the 0Y521 classification, and, as required by §  742.6(a)(7)(iii), within one calendar year of the August 8, 2016 rule providing for the temporary 0Y521 series classification, the U.S Government submitted a proposal to the NSG seeking a longer-term, multilateral classification for the targets and related technologies. The NSG adopted the United States' proposal. Therefore, as required under the 0Y521 ECCN series procedure and to fulfill the multilateral commitment made at the NSG, this final rule formally implements the adoption of a nuclear nonproliferation (NP) control for the items mentioned. This rule also implements an anti-terrorism (AT) control on the items.

In this rule, BIS amends the EAR to add a new ECCN, 1A231, for specified target assemblies and components for the production of tritium, and to impose a license requirement on exports and reexports of items classified thereunder. ECCN 1A231 will be inserted between ECCNs 1A227 and 1A290 on the CCL. Specifically, this rule imposes a license requirement on exports and reexports of such items if they are either (a.) target assemblies made of or containing lithium enriched in the lithium-6 isotope “specially designed” for the production of tritium through irradiation, including insertion in a nuclear reactor; or (b.) components “specially designed” for the target assemblies specified in Item paragraph a. of new ECCN 1A231. A Technical Note to paragraph b. provides that components “specially designed” for target assemblies for the production of tritium may include lithium pellets, tritium getters, and specially-coated cladding.

In addition, pursuant to this rule, the related “production” technology for the items controlled under the new ECCN 1A231 entry is classified under existing ECCNs 1E001 and 1E201. Consequently, a reference to ECCN 1A231 has been added to the headings of ECCN 1E001 and ECCN 1E201 and to the License Requirements section of ECCN 1E001. The items classified under new ECCN 1A231 and under existing ECCNs 1E001 and 1E201 in this rule are controlled for nuclear nonproliferation (NP) Column 1 and anti-terrorism (AT) Column 1 reasons.

License Exception availability for items specified under new ECCN 1A231, and the related technology specified under existing ECCNs 1E001 and 1E201, is consistent with Category 1 NP controlled end items and related technology and provisions, as described in § 742.3 of the EAR.

Applications for licenses to export and reexport the target assemblies and components covered under ECCN 1A231 and the related technology controlled under ECCNs 1E001 and 1E201 will be reviewed using the factors described in paragraph (b)—Licensing policy—of § 742.3 of the EAR, which include: The appropriateness of the stated end-use, including specifically for the stated end-user; the items' significance for nuclear purposes; whether the items are to be used in certain specified types of research; the types of assurances or guarantees given against use for nuclear explosive purposes or proliferation; whether any party to the transaction has been engaged in clandestine or illegal procurement activities; whether an application for a license to export or reexport to the end-user has previously been denied or whether the end-user has previously diverted items to unauthorized activities which were received under a license, a license exception, or shipped with no license required; whether the transaction would present an unacceptable risk of diversion to a nuclear explosive activity or unsafeguarded nuclear fuel-cycle activity, as described in § 744.2(a) of the EAR; and consideration of factors related to the nonproliferation credentials of the importing country.

Finally, in this rule, BIS amends the EAR to make a conforming change. Specifically, BIS amends supplement No. 5 to part 774—Items Classified Under ECCNs 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521—to remove the existing references to the targets under “0A521. Systems, Equipment and Components.”, and the related technology under “0E521. Technology.”

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

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule affects two approved collections: (1) The Simplified Network Application Processing + System (control number 0694-0088), which carries a burden hour estimate of 43.8 minutes manual or electronic and includes, among other things, license applications; and (2) License Exceptions and Exclusions (control number 0694-0137). BIS does not believe that this rule will materially increase the number of submissions under these collections. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email at [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-7285 and to Steven Clagett, BIS, at [email protected].

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

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring prior notice, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS, with the concurrence of the U.S. Departments of Defense and State, and after consultation with the Department of Energy, is implementing this rule which identifies items to be controlled for nuclear nonproliferation and anti-terrorism reasons. This action fulfills the United States' commitment to implement controls agreed to and adopted by members (including the United States) of the relevant multilateral regime (the Nuclear Suppliers Group). These items were previously and temporarily classified for regional stability reasons under the ECCN 0Y521 series, indicating that the above-referenced agencies determined that the items should be controlled for export because the items provide at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or for foreign policy reasons. This rule is necessary to effect the nuclear nonproliferation and anti-terrorism foreign policy goals of the United States, and therefore to ensure the security interests of the United States. Implementation upon publication will allow BIS to continue to prevent exports of these items to users and for uses that pose a threat to the United States or its allies. If BIS delayed this rule to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment, the resulting delay in implementation, instead of immediate implementation simultaneous with formal removal of the temporary 0Y521 ECCN from supplement No. 5 to part 774, increases the opportunity for the export of these items to users and uses that pose a proliferation threat, thereby undermining the purpose of the initial rule and this subsequent rule. This rule serves, appropriately, as notice to the public of the longer-term control of the items mentioned.

Further, BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Immediate implementation of these changes, based upon a description agreed to by the U.S. and its multilateral export control regime allies, will allow BIS to continue to prevent exports of these items to users and for uses that pose threats to the security interests to the United States or its allies particularly in relation to nuclear nonproliferation and anti-terrorism. If BIS delayed this rule to allow for a 30-day delay in effectiveness, the resulting delay in implementation would afford an opportunity for the export of these items to users and uses that pose such threats, thereby undermining the purpose of the rule. In addition, no comments were submitted in response to the preceding interim final rule of August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52326). Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

The Commission is correcting 16 CFR part 305 to replace language in § 305.15(b) inadvertently removed by amendments published on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67285, 67299; effective November 2, 2017).

For the reasons discussed above, part 305 of title 16 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during October, November, and December 2017, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book) at: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/default.htm.

Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following application to Elanco US, Inc., 2500 Innovation Way, Greenfield, IN 46140:

Strategic Veterinary Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 100 NW Airport Rd., St. Joseph, MO 64503 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following applications to HQ Specialty Pharma Corp., 120 Rte. 17 North, suite 130, Paramus, NJ 07652:

Ridley Block Operations Inc., 424 North Riverfront Dr., P.O. Box 8500, Mankato, MN 56002-8500 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following applications to Ridley USA, Inc., 111 W Cherry St., suite 500, Mankato, MN 56001:

Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc., 424 North Riverfront Dr., P.O. Box 8500, Mankato, MN 56002-8500 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following application to Ridley USA, Inc., 111 W Cherry St., suite 500, Mankato, MN 56001:

Accordingly, the animal drug regulations are being amended to reflect these changes of sponsorship. Following these withdrawals of approval, neither Ridley Block Operations, Inc. nor Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc. is the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, these firms will be removed from the list of sponsors of approved applications in § 510.600(c) (21 CFR 510.600(c)).

This final rule is issued under section 512(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.360b(i)), which requires Federal Register publication of “notice[s] . . . effective as a regulation,” of the conditions of use of approved new animal drugs. This rule sets forth technical amendments to the regulations to codify recent actions on approved new animal drug applications and corrections to improve the accuracy of the regulations, and as such does not impose any burden on regulated entities.

Although denominated a rule pursuant to the FD&C Act, this document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a “rule of particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866, which defines a rule as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.”

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 526, and 558 are amended as follows:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publicly available on the Department's issuance website.

DoD internal guidance concerning defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies will continue to be published in DoD Instruction 3025.21, “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies,” available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publicly available on the Department's issuance website.

DoD internal guidance concerning defense support of special events will continue to be published in DoD Directive 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),” available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/302518p.pdf.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

The Coast Guard periodically receives notification from Vigor Industrial regarding their scheduled drydock movements in the West Duwamish Waterway, and has established temporary safety zones to ensure the safety of the maritime public during Vigor Industrial's operations. The Coast Guard last published a temporary safety zone; Vigor Industrial Ferry Construction, West Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53297).

On November 16, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Vigor Industrial Drydock Movement, West Duwamish Waterway; Seattle, WA (81 FR 80621). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this safety zone. During the comment period that ended January 17, 2017, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is establishing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR part 165.

Due to the dangers involved with a large, slow moving drydock that will be maneuvering close to the shore, the Coast Guard is establishing a short term safety zone that is activated on a notice of enforcement to ensure the safety of the workers involved as well as the maritime public during Vigor Industrial's operations.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published November 16, 2016. There is one change in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

We changed the proposed language in § 165.1340(b)(2) as follows: In the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2), the word “consult” is changed to “communicate.” The second sentence of paragraph (b)(2) remains unchanged. This change is intended to clarify that consultation occurs once the Coast Guard receives sufficient information from Vigor Industrial and the Muckleshoot Tribe that there are impacts to treaty fishing activities.

This rule establishes a safety zone encompassing all waters in a rectangle approximately 450-yards-by-500-yards at the mouth of the West Duwamish Waterway as it empties into Elliot Bay in Seattle, Washington. The safety zone is adjacent to the north-eastern tip of Harbor Island in Seattle, WA, and will only be enforced after a notice of enforcement has been issued by the Captain of the Port, Sector Puget Sound. In addition to issuing a notice of enforcement to be published in the Federal Register, the Captain of the Port will use other appropriate means, such as Local Notice to Mariners and Special Marine Information Broadcast, to inform the public of enforcement periods.

To request permission to enter the zone during the times set out by the notice of enforcement, contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-6001 or the Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound on VHF Channel 14. If permission for entry is granted vessels will be required proceed at a minimum speed for navigation.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a small designated area of the West Duwamish Waterway for less than 6 hours per occurrence. From 2005 through 2015, there were a total of 10 instances in which the Coast Guard issued a safety zone for the movement of the Vigor Dry Dock. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 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 will 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.

This rule was determined to have potential tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will impact vessel traffic in the West Duwamish Waterway. The Coast Guard consulted with the Muckleshoot tribe on the NPRM that preceded this rule. In order to reach an agreeable timeframe that avoids impacts to treaty fishing activities, the Coast Guard will communicate with the Muckleshoot tribe and Vigor Industrial once it receives notification from Vigor Industrial concerning drydock movements that require the enforcement of the safety zone. If agreement is not reached, the Coast Guard, as a Federal trustee, will conduct consultation with the Muckleshoot tribe to ensure Vigor movements will avoid Treaty impacts.

If you believe this rule has additional 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 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone to ensure the safety of the maritime public. 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:

I. Background

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

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

The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on proposed revisions containing new and/or revised state regulations. A submission from a state can revise one or more rules in their entirety or portions of rules, or even change a single word. The state indicates the changes in the submission (such as, by using redline/strikethrough) and EPA then takes action on the requested changes. EPA establishes a docket for its actions using a unique Docket Identification Number, which is listed in each action. These dockets and the complete submission are available for viewing on www.regulations.gov.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference, into the Code of Federal Regulations, materials approved by EPA into each state SIP. These changes revised the format for the identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part 52, streamlined the mechanisms for announcing EPA approval of revisions to a SIP, and streamlined the mechanisms for EPA's updating of the IBR information contained for each SIP in 40 CFR part 52. The revised procedures also called for EPA to maintain “SIP Compilations” that contain the federally-approved regulations and source specific permits submitted by each state agency. These SIP Compilations are contained in 3-ring binders and are updated primarily on an annual basis. Under the revised procedures, EPA must periodically publish an informational document in the rules section of the Federal Register notifying the public that updates have been made to a SIP Compilation for a particular state. EPA applied the 1997 revised procedures to South Carolina on July 1, 1997 (62 FR 35441).

This action represents EPA's publication of the South Carolina SIP Compilation update, appearing in 40 CFR part 52: specifically, the materials in paragraph (c) and (d) at 40 CFR 52.2120. In addition, notice is provided of the following corrections to the table in paragraph (C) of § 52.2120, as described below:

A. Reformatting the Table by combining the “EPA approval date” and “Federal Register notice” columns and adding a new column titled “Explanation”.

B. Correcting typographical errors, state effective dates, EPA approval dates and Federal Register citations listed in the table in paragraph (c), as described below:

1. Under the “State effective date” and “EPA approval date” the 2-digit year was changed to reflect a 4-digit year (for consistency) and numerous Federal Register citations were corrected to reflect the first page of the preamble opposed to the regulatory text page.

2. Under Regulation No. 62.1, “Section IV” the State effective date was revised to read “6/27/2014” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/21/2017, 82 FR 39537.”

3. Under Regulation No. 62.1, “Section IV” the State effective date was revised to read “6/27/2014” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/21/2017, 82 FR 39537.”

4. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 1, “Section VII” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was repealed.

5. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 4, “Section II” the State effective date was revised to read “4/22/1988” and EPA approval date was revised to read “10/3/1989, 54 FR 40659.”

5. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 4, “Section XIII” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was repealed.

6. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, “Section I” the State effective date was revised to read “4/26/2013” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/16/2017, 82 FR 38825.”

7. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section I, “Part A” the State effective date was revised to read “4/26/2013” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/16/2017, 82 FR 38825.”

8. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section I, “Part G” the State effective date was revised to read “4/26/2013” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/16/2017, 82 FR 38825.”

9. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part A” the entry was reinserted after inadvertently being removed, and the State effective date was revised to read “11/27/2015” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/16/2017, 82 FR 38825.”

10. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part B” the State effective date was revised to read “11/27/2015” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/16/2017, 82 FR 38825.”

11. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part I” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was reserved and was never approved into the SIP.

12. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part J” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was reserved and was never approved into the SIP.

13. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part K” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was reserved and was never approved into the SIP.

14. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part L” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was reserved and was never approved into the SIP.

15. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part M” the entry was removed from the table because the rule was reserved and was never approved into the SIP.

16. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 5, Section II, “Part Q” the State effective date was revised to read “4/26/2013” and EPA approval date was revised to read “8/16/2017, 82 FR 38825.”

17. Under Regulation No. 62.5, “Standard No. 6” and subentries for “Sections I—III” the entries were removed from the table because they had previously been disapproved and the original approval rescinded from the SIP. See 60 FR 12700 (March 8, 1995). Additionally, EPA inadvertently added these sections back to the table when administrative edits were included alongside a SIP revision. See 67 FR 30594 (May 7, 2002).

18. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7.1, “Section I” entry was removed from the table because it had previously been consolidated into Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7. See 67 FR 30594 (May 7, 2002).

19. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7.1, “Section II” entry was removed from the table because it had previously been consolidated into Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7. See 67 FR 30594 (May 7, 2002).

20. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7.1, “Section III” entry was removed from the table because it had previously been consolidated into Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7. See 67 FR 30594 (May 7, 2002).

21. Under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7.1, “Section IV” entry was removed from the table because it had previously been consolidated into Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7. See 67 FR 30594 (May 7, 2002).

22. Footnote 1 was removed and inserted in the explanation column under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 7 and Standard No. 7.1.

EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs and corrects typographical errors appearing in the CFR. Under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification (and typographical corrections) only reflect existing law. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the public notice of the updated South Carolina SIP Compilation and notice of typographical corrections to the South Carolina “Identification of Plan” portion of the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 553(d)(3), making this action immediately effective benefits the public by immediately updating both the SIP compilation and the CFR “Identification of plan” section (which includes table entry corrections).

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously EPA-approved regulations promulgated by South Carolina and federally effective prior to October 1, 2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this notice of administrative change for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

EPA also believes that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. This is because prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the South Carolina SIP compilations previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA is not available.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Table of Contents

The following is an outline of the Preamble.

The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.

On December 21, 2017, the Administrator of the EPA promulgated a third round of initial air quality designations for certain areas in the U.S. for the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018), in accordance with section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The list of newly designated areas in each state, the boundaries of each area, and the designation of each area, appear in the tables at the end of that action. Six areas were designated as Nonattainment; 23 areas were designated Unclassifiable; and the rest of the areas covered by the third round in all states, territories, and tribal lands were designated Attainment/Unclassifiable. The purpose of this action is to withdraw the SO2 designation for one area that we designated as Unclassifiable in the December 2017 action and designate that area as Attainment/Unclassifiable.

The December 2017 action provided that these designations be effective 90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register (i.e., April 9, 2018). Because the designations were promulgated so close to the end of the 2017 calendar year, the EPA indicated in that action that if any state were to submit complete, quality-assured, certified 2017 data or related information about 2017 air quality to the EPA by February 28, 2018, that supported a change of the designation status for any area within that state, and if the EPA agreed that a change of designation status is appropriate, then we would withdraw the designation announced in the December 2017 action for the area and issue the appropriate designation that reflects the inclusion and analysis of such information. The EPA received such 2017 air quality information from the state of Florida prior to February 28, 2018, and this information is available in the docket for this action.1 Based on our evaluation of these data, in this supplemental action, the EPA is changing the designation status from Unclassifiable to Attainment/Unclassifiable for one portion of Citrus County, Florida. The portion of Citrus County affected by this surrounds the Crystal River Power Plant.2

The December 2017 action was based on application of the EPA's nationwide analytical approach and technical analysis, including evaluation of monitoring data and air quality modeling, to determine the appropriate designation based on the weight of evidence for each area, which are hereby incorporated by reference into this supplement of that action (see 83 FR at 1099-1100).

Modification to the initial designation for this area does not represent a “redesignation” because this change is a withdrawal of the initial designation prior to its effective date and issuance of a new initial designation. We are making this change to reflect the most recent 3 years of complete, quality-assured, and certified data that have become available prior to the effective date of the designations.

In the December 2017 action, we also stated that if certified 2017 data indicated a violation of the standard in an area we initially designated as Attainment/Unclassifiable or Unclassifiable, the EPA would evaluate the reason for the violation and determine the appropriate course of action, including the possibility of redesignation to Nonattainment. No states submitted certified 2017 data by February 28, 2018, to indicate a violation of the standard in any area initially designated as Attainment/Unclassifiable or Unclassifiable.

On August 22, 2017, the EPA indicated an intent to designate a portion of Citrus County, Florida as Nonattainment based on the most recent three years, at that time, of complete, quality-assured, certified data from a monitor (2014-2016) indicating a violating 1-hr SO2 design value of 81 parts per billion (ppb). The EPA explained in its Technical Support Document (TSD) for the intended designations (See, Chapter 9, page 101) 3 that if, prior to the effective date of designations, the Citrus County SO2 monitor produced a valid attaining design value for the 2015-2017 period, and credible modeling was provided for the area that indicated attainment for the current 3-year period, then the EPA would change the designation of the area to Attainment/Unclassifiable and the designated area would be Citrus County in its entirety. Prior to the final designations in the December 2017 action, in October and November of 2017, Florida provided a new air quality modeling analysis to characterize the maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations in the area and demonstrated attainment throughout the modeled area, (See, Chapter 9, pages 4-49 of the TSD).4 That modeling utilized emissions that are representative of actual emissions from the most recent available 3-year period, July 2014 through June 2017. In December 2017, Florida also submitted early-certified monitoring data through December 9, 2017, at monitoring AQS Site # 12-017-0006 in Citrus County, Florida. The EPA indicated in the TSD that if the monitor did not record 4 daily maximum 1-hour averages of 90 ppb or higher between December 10 and December 31, 2017, then the 4th highest value would be 89 ppb or less and the design value calculation for 2015-2017 would be lower than the NAAQS. Based on the above information, the EPA determined there was uncertainty whether the area was meeting the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS based on the available monitoring data and modeling analyses, and designated a portion of Citrus County as Unclassifiable in the December 2017 final action.

The state of Florida submitted complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data for calendar year 2017 to the EPA by the prescribed deadline of February 28, 2018. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a data certification letter and reports, which can be found in the docket,5 that show a valid, attaining 1-hour SO2 design value of 58 ppb based on complete, certified 2015-2017 data. The monitor at AQS Site # 12-017-0006 is located 3.4 miles east of Crystal River Power Plant (CRPP). The monitor has not been demonstrated to be located to characterize the maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations near CRPP or the area. Combining Florida's October and November 2017 modeling, discussed above, with the inclusion of the 2017 data submitted for the monitor showing the attaining 3-year design values for 2015-2017, the EPA agrees with changing the initial designation for this area with respect to the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS.

Based on complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data from 2017 submitted by Florida DEP prior to the prescribed February 28, 2018, deadline, and modeling showing attainment of the 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS in the area, the EPA is changing the initial designation status for this one area. As noted in Section II of this preamble, the EPA provided a process in the December 2017 final action for considering 2017 air quality data in the event that such data would support a change to the initial designation for an area. Pursuant to this process, the EPA is withdrawing the initial designation for the Unclassifiable area in one portion of Citrus County, Florida. The EPA is changing the initial designation of this portion of Citrus County from Unclassifiable to Attainment/Unclassifiable, thereby designating the entirety of Citrus County as Attainment/Unclassifiable. Procedurally, this change in the initial designation is consistent with our early data certification and evaluation process, as described earlier in this document and in the December 2017 action. The table at the end of this final rule (amendment to 40 CFR 81.310—Florida) lists the entire state, including the area for which the EPA is changing the initial designation. This action does not impact any areas of Indian country.

The effective date of designation of the area addressed in this action is April 9, 2018, the same effective date as the December 2017 final action (83 FR 1098). The EPA is making these changes without notice and comment in accordance with section 107(d)(2) of the CAA, which exempts the promulgation of these designations from the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rulemakings shall not be effective less than 30 days after publication except where the agency finds good cause for an earlier date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3). Were the EPA not to expedite the effective date of today's action, and instead make the effective date 30 days after publication, there would be confusion regarding the appropriate designation for the affected area in Florida, and the state and the EPA would likely have to expend unnecessary time and resources at a later time to resolve that confusion. The effective date for this action is, therefore, justified because the EPA finds that there is good cause to make the rule effective immediately because it is in the public interest to avoid the potential delay and waste of resources associated with allowing the designations in the December 2017 action to go into effect for this area and the rule does not contain new requirements for which affected entities need time to prepare.

During the public comment period for the third round of designations, Sierra Club submitted comments alleging that once the EPA provides a NAAQS designation for an area no later than December 31, 2017, it can only redesignate that area by following the applicable legal provisions for redesignation in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.6

The “legal deadline” of December 31, 2017, Sierra Club refers to is a consent decree deadline by which the EPA must sign its notice of promulgation of final designations for publication in the Federal Register. The commenter is correct that section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides the legal requirements and mechanism for redesignating an area once it is designated. However, such redesignation hinges upon there being such a final and effective designation in place for an area, which is not at the time of signature by the EPA or publication of the Federal Register notice promulgating such designations. Notably, section 107(d)(2) of the CAA does not contain publication and effective date requirements applicable for promulgation of designations. The commenter, therefore, incorrectly asserts that the December 31, 2017, consent decree deadline is when “EPA makes its designation.” Accordingly, the redesignations process under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA is not yet applicable at the legal deadline referenced by commenter. The EPA implemented this approach previously for the final designations for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 19844 and 80 FR 18535). Sierra Club's comment also addresses an action that the EPA is not taking at this time, namely to revise a designation from Nonattainment to Attainment or Unclassifiable, and, thus, is not relevant to this supplemental designation action and not addressed here.

When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either Nonattainment, Attainment, or Unclassifiable. Area designations address environmental justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about the air quality in an area. In locations where air quality does not meet the NAAQS, the CAA requires relevant state authorities to initiate appropriate air quality management actions to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in those areas are protected, regardless of minority and economic status. This action includes a revision to the December 21, 2017, designation for the Citrus County, Florida area based on the availability of recent air quality data showing that the area meets the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS.

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it responds to the CAA requirement to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as air quality designations after promulgating a new or revised NAAQS are exempt under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action fulfills the non-discretionary duty for the EPA to promulgate air quality designations after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and does not contain any information collection activities.

This designation action under CAA section 107(d) is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Section 107(d)(2)(B) of the CAA explicitly provides that designations are exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA. In addition, designations under CAA section 107(d) are not among the list of actions that are subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of CAA section 307(d).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action concerns the designation of certain areas in the U.S. for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The CAA provides for states, territories, and eligible tribes to develop plans to regulate emissions of air pollutants within their areas, as necessary, based on the designations. The Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) provides tribes the opportunity to apply for eligibility to develop and implement CAA programs, such as programs to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion of the tribe the decision of whether to apply to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, the tribe will seek to adopt. This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes. It would not create any additional requirements beyond those of the SO2 NAAQS. This rule does not impact areas of Indian country. Furthermore, this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the federal government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this determination is contained in Section VI of this preamble, “Environmental Justice Concerns.”

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the U.S. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

This final action withdrawing the designation and promulgating a new initial designation of one area for the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). As explained in the preamble, this final action supplements the December 2017 final action taken by the EPA to issue a third round of designations for areas across the U.S. for the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS. The EPA determined the December 2017 final action was “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). 83 FR at 1104. The rulemaking docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003, is the same docket for both the December 2017 final action and for this supplemental action, with the relevant difference being that in addition to the materials it contained regarding this Florida area generated through December 21, 2017—the date that action was signed by the Administrator—it now also contains the supplemental information submitted by Florida related to this area. Both the January 9, 2018, action and this supplemental action were proposed in a single September 5, 2017, notice announcing the EPA's intended Round 3 designations and were taken to discharge a duty under the court order to issue a round of designations of areas with sources meeting common criteria in the court order. As explained in the December 2017 final rule, at the core of that final action and this supplemental final action is the EPA's nationwide analytical approach and technical analysis, including evaluation of monitoring data and air quality modeling, applied to the available evidence for each area, including the EPA's interpretation of statutory terms in the CAA such as the definitions of Nonattainment, Attainment, and Unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, and its application of that interpretation to areas across the country. Accordingly, the Administrator has determined that this supplemental final action, which results from the same proposed action as the December 2017 final action, is nationally applicable and is hereby publishing that finding in the Federal Register.

For the same reasons discussed above that make the final rule nationally applicable, the Administrator also is finding that this supplemental final action is based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1). As previously explained in the December 2017 final action, in the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an action is of “nationwide scope or effect” would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect of the December 2017 final action and this supplemental final action combined will extend to numerous judicial circuits since the designations will apply to areas across the country. In these circumstances, CAA section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the action to be of “nationwide scope or effect” and for venue to be in the D.C. Circuit. Therefore, like the final December 2017 final action it supplements, see 83 FR at 1104, this supplement to that final action is based on a determination by the Administrator of nationwide scope or effect, and the Administrator is, hereby, publishing that finding in the Federal Register.

Thus, any petitions for review of this supplemental final action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this supplemental final action is published in the Federal Register.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The B season apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI is 4,425 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the B season apportionment of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 3,425 mt and is setting aside the remaining 1,000 mt as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 30, 2018.

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

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