OPM has been advised by various agencies of the need for amendments to the list of agents designated to receive legal process under 5 CFR part 581, appendix A, and 5 CFR part 582, appendix A. This rule updates the list of agents and deletes a duplicate reference in 5 CFR part 582, appendix A, that is already listed under 5 CFR part 581, appendix A, with respect to how to serve Navy Exchange Service Command non-appropriated fund employees.

This rule has been determined to be significant, but not economically significant, for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule only makes administrative changes to the listing of designated agents for agencies for ease, clarity, and transparency, and therefore does not have economically significant effects.

OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as this rule only applies to Federal agencies and employees.

OPM has examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in Executive Order 12988.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR parts 581 and 582 as follows:

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to § 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are unnecessary.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate for their new Model Falcon 5X airplane. However, Dassault has decided not to release an airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X, instead choosing to change that model designation to Falcon 6X.

In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault extended the type certificate application date for their Model Falcon 5X airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This airplane is a twin-engine business jet with seating for 19 passengers, and has a maximum takeoff weight of 77,460 pounds.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 6X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-146.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X 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 type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates 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 Dassault Model Falcon 6X 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 § 21.17(a)(2).

The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: An electronic flight-control system (EFCS) and no direct coupling from the flight deck controller to the control surface.

As a result of the EFCS and lack of direct coupling from the flight deck controller to the control surface, the pilot is not aware of the actual control surface position. Some unusual flight conditions, arising from atmospheric conditions and/or airplane or engine failures, may result in full or nearly full surface deflection. Unless the flightcrew is made aware of excessive deflection or impending control surface limiting, piloted or auto-flight system control of the airplane might be inadvertently continued in such a manner to cause loss of control or other unsafe stability or performance characteristics. The airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the conditions that result from the EFCS and lack of direct coupling from the flight deck controller to the control surface.

To establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations, these special conditions are established. These special conditions require that the flightcrew receive suitable flight-control position annunciation when a condition exists in which nearly full surface authority (not crew commanded) is being utilized. Suitability of such an alerting must take into account that some pilot-demanded maneuvers ( e.g., rapid roll) are necessarily associated with intended full performance, which may saturate the surface. Therefore, simple alerting systems, which would function in either intended or unexpected control-limiting situations, must be properly balanced between necessary crew awareness and unwanted nuisance factors. A monitoring system that might compare airplane motion, surface deflection, and pilot demand could be helpful in reducing nuisance alerting.

Additionally, these special conditions address flight control system mode annunciation. Suitable mode annunciation must be provided to the flightcrew for events that significantly change the operating mode of the system but do not merit the classic “failure warning.”

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.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

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 the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X airplane.

In addition to compliance with §§ 25.143, 25.671, 25.672, and 25.1322, the following special conditions apply:

1. The system design must ensure that the flightcrew is made suitably aware whenever the primary control means nears the limit of control authority.

2. If the flight-control system has multiple modes of operation, the system must alert the flight crew when the airplane enters any mode that significantly changes or degrades the normal handling or operational characteristics of the airplane.

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all CFM LEAP-1A model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2023 (88 FR 17753). The NPRM was prompted by notification from the manufacturer that iron inclusion was detected in three non-LEAP-1A HPT rotor disks. Further investigation by the manufacturer determined that the iron inclusion is attributed to deficiencies in the manufacturing process. The investigation by the manufacturer also determined that certain CFM LEAP-1A HPT stage 1 disks, forward outer seals, and compressor rotor stages 6-10 spools manufactured using the same process may have reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability due to iron inclusion, which may cause premature fracture and subsequent uncontained failure of certain HPT stage 1 disks, forward outer seals, and compressor rotor stages 6-10 spools. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of certain HPT stage 1 disks, forward outer seals, and compressor rotor stages 6-10 spools. The FAA also proposed to prohibit installation of an HPT stage 1 disk, forward outer seal, or compressor rotor stages 6-10 spool that has a part number and serial number identified in the service information onto any engine. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received one comment, from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). ALPA supported the NPRM without change.

Since the NPRM published, the FAA determined the need to change a part name in the final rule from “stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool” to “compressor rotor stages 6-10 spool,” to make the nomenclature consistent with the service information. The FAA has revised this final rule to incorporate this change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, including the change described above and a change to the contact address for service information, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed the following service information issued by CFM, which identify the part numbers and serial numbers of HPT stage 1 disks, forward outer seals, and compressor rotor stages 6-10 spools with potentially reduced material properties and specify procedures for replacement of these parts. These documents are distinct since they apply to different engine serial numbers.

• Service Bulletin LEAP-1A-72-00-0470-01A-930A-D, Issue 003, dated March 3, 2023.

• Service Bulletin LEAP-1A-72-00-0493-01A-930A-D, Issue 002, dated November 17, 2022.

• Service Bulletin LEAP-1A-72-00-0496-01A-930A-D, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2023.

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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 38 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

The FAA is 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 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This update is an administrative change and does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Stanly County Airport, Albemarle, NC, by updating the geographic coordinates for this airport to coincide with the FAA's database. This action would also replace Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions and Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the Class D airspace description. This action is an administrative change and does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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:

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, 15 June 2023.

I. Background

In the Federal Register of November 21, 2022 (87 FR 70910), we issued a final rule establishing additional recordkeeping requirements for persons who manufacture, process, pack, or hold foods FDA has designated for inclusion on the Food Traceability List (the final rule). The requirements established in the final rule will help the Agency rapidly and effectively identify recipients of foods to prevent or mitigate foodborne illness outbreaks and address credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death resulting from foods being adulterated or misbranded. The final rule, which is codified at 21 CFR part 1, subpart S (§§ 1.1300 through 1.1465), became effective on January 20, 2023, but has a compliance date of January 20, 2026.

We examined the economic implications of the final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and determined that the final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28), we are making available the SECG to explain the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the rule.

We are issuing the SECG consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 1, subpart S, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0560.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the SECG at https://www.fda.gov/food/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma/fsma-rules-guidance-industry, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

Electronic Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

On March 2, 2023, OFAC issued GL O to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560, or Executive Order 13846 of August 6, 2018, “Reimposing Certain Sanctions With Respect to Iran” (83 FR 38939). This GL was made available on OFAC's website ( www.treas.gov/ofac ) when it was issued. GL O has an expiration date of June 30, 2023. The text of this GL is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, the following transactions are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 30, 2023, provided that any payment to a blocked person, including any blocked entity described in paragraph (b) of this general license, must be made into a blocked account and reported to the Office of Foreign Assets Control consistent with § 501.603 of the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR part 501:

(1) All transactions prohibited by section 5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13846 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving any vessel in which one or more entities described in paragraph (b) of this general license have an interest, including the vessels described in the Annex to this general license (the “blocked vessels”); and

(2) All transactions prohibited by the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (ITSR), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to any of the following activities involving the blocked vessels or entities described in paragraph (b) of this general license:

(i) The safe docking and anchoring of any of the blocked vessels in port;

(ii) The preservation of the health or safety of the crew of any of the blocked vessels; and

(iii) Emergency repairs of any of the blocked vessels or environmental mitigation or protection activities relating to any of the blocked vessels.

(b) The authorizations in paragraph (a) of this general license apply to the following entities:

(1) Golden Lotus Oil Gas and Real Estate Joint Stock Company;

(2) Swedish Management CO SA;

(3) Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Company Limited;

(4) Global Marine Ship Management Co., Ltd.; or

(5) Any entity in which one or more of the above entities own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest.

(c) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The offloading of any Iranian-origin petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products;

(2) The entry into any new commercial contracts involving the blocked vessels or the entities described in paragraph (b) of this general license, except as authorized by paragraph (a); or

(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by section 5 of E.O. 13846 or the ITSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to section 5 of E.O. 13846 or the ITSR other than the blocked entities described in paragraph (b) of this general license, unless separately authorized.

Vessels in which one or more of the entities described in paragraph (b) of Iran General License O have an interest:

(a) Vessels in which Golden Lotus Oil Gas and Real Estate Joint Stock Company has an interest:

(b) Vessels in which Swedish Management CO SA has an interest:

(c) Vessels in which Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Company Limited has an interest:

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

On May 1, 2023, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule establishing a safety zone on all waters of the Ohio River from MM 487.0 to 489.0 to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by Duke Energy's Static Wire Crossing operation (88 FR 28408, May 4, 2023). The original rule was effective through May 15, 2023. However, additional time is needed to conduct the static wire crossing, and, as a result, the Coast Guard needs to extend the safety zone through May 19, 2023. 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 extension because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM and hold a reasonable comment period for this rulemaking because it is impracticable due to the emergent nature of the continuing wire crossing operation and required publication of this extension.

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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect persons and property from the dangers associated with the static wire crossing operation.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Duke Energy's Static Wire Crossing operation will be a safety concern for all navigable waters on the Ohio River from MM 487.0 to 489.0. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters.

This rule extends the effective dates of an established safety zone, originally established on May 1, 2023, and effective through May 15, 2023, through May 19, 2023. The safety zone includes all navigable waters of the Ohio River between MM 487.0 to 489.0. The extended duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the maritime environment in these navigable waters while static wire crossing operations are conducted.. No vessel or persons will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels may contact Sector Ohio Valley Command Center on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465. Person and vessel permitted to enter this regulated area must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

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. 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).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone will be in place on a two mile stretch of the Ohio River between the hours of 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. through May 19, 2023, or until the work is completed, whichever is sooner. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the temporary safety zone. This rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the safety 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 call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting for 30 days that will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters of the Chincoteague Bay. 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. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email 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. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On January 12, 2023, the City of Newport News notified the Coast Guard that they will be conducting fireworks display annually on July 4th from 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. each year, to commemorate Independence Day. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge at position 36°58′28.72″ N, 076°26′20.97″ W in the James River in Newport News, VA. In response, on March 21, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Fireworks Display; James River, Newport News, VA” [88 FR 16922; FR 2023-05669]. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended April 20, 2023, two comments were received.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this 4th of July fireworks display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 400-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published March 21, 2023. Both comments were in support of the regulation. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone annually on July 4th from 9 to 9:30 p.m. each year. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 400 yards of the fireworks barge located at position 36°58′28.72″ N, 076°26′20.97″ W in the James River in Newport News, VA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person would 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 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. 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).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the James River for less than 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard 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 would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 30 minutes that will prohibit entry within 400 yards of the fireworks barge. 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. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email 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. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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 we must establish the safety zone by May 27, 2023, and lack sufficient time to request public comments and respond to these comments before the safety zone must be established. Waiting for a full comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to keep the public safe from the hazards associated with a fireworks display and the ability to minimize the impact to vessel traffic on the navigable waterway.

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 the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the Nitro Memorial Day Celebration taking place on the Kanawha River between mile marker 43 and mile marker 44.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with Nitro Memorial Day Celebration starting May 27, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Kanawha River from mile marker 43 to mile marker 44. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a fireworks display.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on May 27, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile markers 43 and 44 on the Kanawha River. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a fireworks display.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of the COTP. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Marine Safety Unit Huntington at 304-563-9084. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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. 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).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a 1-mile stretch of the Kanawha River for a limited duration of less than 2 hours. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to transit 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 call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will limit access of the Kanawha River from mile marker 43 to mile marker 44. 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. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email 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:

On January 12, 2023, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (88 FR 2047-2049) to revise subsection 508.1.8 by reorganizing and revising the subsections in 508.1.8. The proposed rule included changes to accommodate the development of an electronic database to collect and manage the information collected on PS Form 1583, Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent, which has been collected and maintained as paper records. In this final rule, the Postal Service is adopting the proposed rule with three minor changes described below. As part of the final rule, CMRAs will receive direct notification from the Postal Service informing them how to gain access to the CMRA Customer Registration Database (CRD). Following notification, the CMRA will have a period of approximately 9 months to collect and enter into the CRD new PS Form 1583s for each of their existing Private Mailbox (PMB) customers. PS Form 1583 applications for new PMB customers must be entered into the new CMRA CRD when they are received.

Below are high-level summaries of the changes made to the proposed rule in this final rule:

• DMM section 1.8.2.f will prohibit PMBs from being used for unlawful activity similar to the provisions that apply to P.O. Boxes.

• CMRAs will be permitted to dispose of copies of identification documents after they upload them into the CMRA CRD.

• It is sufficient for a CMRAs to maintain a digital copy of each signed PS Form 1583 in lieu of a paper form.

The Postal Service received 26 responses to the notice of proposed rulemaking, several of which included comments on multiple topics. Commenters included CMRAs, associations, and individual consumers. Comments and Postal Service responses are summarized as follows.

Comment: Several commenters recognized that the new online CMRA CRD will solve the cumbersome and outdated paper-based submission and filing system with the current PS Form 1583—Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent.

Response: The Postal Service shares this assessment and expects that changes will significantly improve accuracy, security, record keeping, and delivery service.

Comment: Several comments indicating that the changes are not possible because the current PS Form 1583 either contradicts the new DMM changes or does not collect the information articulated in the DMM changes.

Response: These comments assume PS Form 1583 will not be changed; however, the Postal Service has updated the PS Form 1583 to be consistent with the DMM changes and new CMRA CRD and will be making the new form available in conjunction with this final rule. The revised Form is available to the public at https://about.usps.com/resources/forms.htm.

Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about compliance with privacy laws as well as 18 United States Code 701 relating to the copying of government identification cards. Additionally, we have been asked to limit or clarify what the Postal Service may use the information we collect in the CMRA CRD for.

Response: The final rule is not inconsistent with 18 U.S.C. 701, which provides that copies may be made as “authorized under regulations made pursuant to law.” The CMRA regulations set forth in the DMM are Postal Service regulations and incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations in accordance with 39 CFR parts 111 and 211. The DMM's identification photocopying requirement falls within the exception recognized by § 701 for copying that is “authorized under regulations made pursuant to law.”

The Postal Service, as an independent establishment of the Executive Branch, complies with the Privacy Act of 1974. Under the Privacy Act, the Postal Service is permitted to collect Privacy Act protected information, including copies of government identification cards retrievable by individual identifier, in a Privacy Act system of records. Records pertaining to CMRAs fall within the scope of the Postal Service Privacy Act customer systems of records found in USPS SOR 845.000, Commercial Mail Receiving Agency, in Appendix E to USPS Handbook AS-353. Changes to USPS SOR 845.000 were recently published in the Federal Register so as to facilitate the changes in practice reflected in this final rule at 87 FR 79005 ( https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/23/2022-27992/notice-of-new-system-of-records-response-to-comments ).

Comment: Several commenters asked about the forms of identification that are acceptable to present when opening a PMB at a CMRA, mentioning corporate identifications and utility bills, among other forms.

Response: The Postal Service updated the acceptable forms of identification for its various services in a prior DMM update published in the Postal Bulletin No. 22613 ( https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2022/pb22613/html/updt_001.htm ). Only those specifically enumerated forms of identification are acceptable. Corporate identification cards and utility bills are no longer acceptable forms of identification for completing PS Form 1583A Application to Act as a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency and PS Form 1583—Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent.

Comment: Several commenters questioned why the identification document presented must be current (not expired), additionally noting that most address verification documents do not have expiration dates.

Response: The Postal Service relies on government agencies to establish and maintain identification document protocols and standards, which change over time. Collection of non-expired identifications ensures the most reliable means of establishing that the person presenting themselves for service is who they claim to be. Current non-expiring documents, such as most of the address verification documents that match the address shown on the application satisfy the address identification requirement.

Comment: One commenter asking if a State Driver's License could serve as an acceptable secondary (address) identification.

Response: A driver's license could be a secondary form of identification, but an application would still need to be supported by separate form of primary (photo) identification. For example: a Passport could be an acceptable primary identification and a Driver's License could be an acceptable secondary form. See DMM 608.10 for acceptable forms of primary and secondary identifications.

Comment: Several commenters asked if a CMRA needed to update expired photo identification documents for PMBs that have closed and are in the 6 month remail period.

Response: No, CMRAs will not need to update expired documents for closed PMBs.

Comment: One commenter asked what identification is collected when the addressee is a business/organization.

Response: The applicant on PS Form 1583 is always an individual and they must provide their primary and secondary forms of identification. If the mail received is to be addressed to a business/organization, the applicant must also list the name and address of the business/organization as well as the place (county and state or country) where the business/organization is registered.

Comment: Several commenters asked how a CMRA could certify that its PS Form 1583s on file are all current with no expired photo identification documents each quarter without reviewing each entry.

Response: In the new system, the CMRA CRD will automatically notify the CMRA when a photo identification document entered has expired so the CMRA may provide notice to their customer to collect a current copy.

Comment: Several commenters asked why a CMRA must remail PMB customers' mail for a period of 6 month after the termination date of their agency relationship.

Response: These comments are not within scope of the current rulemaking. Remailing PMB customers' mail is already specified in DMM section 1.8.3b: “The CMRA must remail mail intended for the addressee (customer) for at least 6 months after the termination date of the agency relationship between the CMRA and addressee.”

Comment: Several commenters asked that the Postal Service apply the same prohibitory language to PMBs as is applied to Post Office Boxes insofar as suspected criminal activity in concerned. Commenters also asked what CMRAs should do when they identify suspected criminal activity associated with a PMB holder.

Response: The Postal Service has taken these comments into consideration and is revising DMM section 1.8.2.f so as to make the prohibitions apply consistently to both Private Mail Boxes (PMBs) and P.O. Boxes, as follows:

Unlawful Activity—A PMB may not be used for, or in connection with, a scheme or enterprise that violates any federal, state, or local law; breaches an agreement with a federal, state, or local agency whereby the box customer has agreed to discontinue a specified activity; or violates or attempts to evade any order of a court or administrative body.

Additionally, the new CMRA CRD will have a mechanism to enable CMRA owners/managers to confidentially report suspicious activity related to a PMB directly to the Postal Inspection Service.

Comment: Several commenters asked why a CMRA owner/manager must complete a PS Form 1583 for themselves.

Response: This measure is being undertaken to enhance security. The local post office will no longer retain copies of photo and address identification documents. The documents will instead be uploaded and securely maintained in the CMRA CRD. Although the CMRA owner/manager will be subject to in person identification proofing, additional measures are needed in order to retain these identification documents so that automated means can ensure they are current and updated as required.

Comment: Several commenters asked about the proposed rule that states “If information on the application does not match the identification, the CMRA must deny the application.” Specifically, the commenters cited situations where a PMB applicant is new to an area and may not have new Identification or address documents.

Response: The CMRA is required to ensure the individuals presenting themselves as an applicant for a PMB or individuals authorized to collect mail from a PMB are correctly identifying themselves. This means their primary (photo) identification documents must be acceptable, non-expired, photo identification documents and the information on those photo identification documents must be entered into the CMRA CRD and a clear and readable copy of those identification documents must be uploaded into the CRD so the Postal Service may verify the information is correct as entered. For PMB applicants new to an area, they may use their primary (photo) identification documents from before their move. They may also update their primary (photo) identification documents at any time. They must update them when they expire. For address verification, the applicant must list the address on the application that matches the acceptable secondary (address) identification document provided. This may be an address identification document from a prior address, e.g., if the applicant has moved to a new area. The individuals may update their secondary (address) identification documents at any time.

Comment: Several commenters inquired about the requirement to provide the address, physical or digital, where mail is transferred or remailed on behalf of the PMB holder, either during the period of the PMB lease or during the six-month period after the box lease has ended.

Response: The PMB holder is a Postal Service customer receiving mail via the U.S. Mail. The Postal Service has a business and service need to ensure its customers are receiving their mail, even if through an agent. The information is required for contingencies such as when the CMRA goes out of business or fails to deliver mail to the customer as directed. This is not a new practice because the existing PS Form 1583 requires the CMRA to report the address where mail is transferred or otherwise remailed upon request. As customer service and security enhancements, the final rule requires that information be entered into the CMRA CRD and be updated at any time if the address for remailing changes.

Comment: Several commenters asked about the rule requiring CMRAs to accept all classes of mail on behalf of PMB holders. Specifically, the commenters questioned the removal of a special designation for restricted delivery and asked about COD mail.

Response: Prior to this rule change, the only class of mail that was treated uniquely was restricted delivery mail. The prior rule allowed the PMB holder to specifically sign PS Form 1583 authorizing the CMRA to receive restricted delivery mail. If this portion of PS Form 1583 was not signed, the Postal Service was not supposed to deliver restricted delivery mail to that specific PMB. That rule has been an unworkable solution. The Postal Service provides single point delivery to a CMRA and the letter carrier delivering the mail to the CMRA has no knowledge or access to PS Form 1583s submitted for the PMB holders and has no way to know if a piece of Restricted Mail should be withheld from delivery. Therefore, the final rule clarifies that a PMB holder will receive all mail via the CMRA address, including restricted delivery. There was previously no exemption for COD mail, so the final rule makes no change with respect to treatment of COD mail.

Comment: Several commenters asked about the implementation date of these changes and the time period to begin using the CMRA CRD as well as the time period to enter all PMB applicants in the CMRA CRD.

Response: To coincide with other changes to the DMM, these final rules will go into effect on July 9, 2023. Each CMRA will receive direct notice, via physical mail, from the Postal Service with instructions on how to access and enter PS Form 1583 data and documents into the CMRA CRD. Once the CMRA receives this direct notice, they will be able to enter all the PS Form 1583 data into the application. Existing PMB customers will need to complete a new PS Form 1583 and provide copies of their identification documents. CMRAs will have a period of nine (9) months to complete the task of migrating all existing PMB customers to the new form and application.

Comment: One commentor questioned whether existing spouses who both are currently listed on a single PS Form 1583 could be “grandfathered in” and not complete a new 1583 for each.

Response: A new PS Form 1583 will need to be completed for every PMB customer. Each spouse must complete a separate PS Form 1583. In order for the Postal Service to optimize the security benefits of the new system, all customers (including spouses) are required to complete a new PS Form 1583.

Comment: One commenter stated that CMRAs lack the physical security to ensure the protection of copies of photo and address identification documents provided by PMB customers and asked if the CMRA could elect to not retain a copy of the identification documents after they upload them into the CMRA CRD to mitigate the risk of theft or loss.

Response: The Postal Service appreciates this concern. Upon further consideration, the final rule has been revised to accommodate this suggestion. Specifically, the final rule has been changed so that the CMRA has the option to dispose of copies of the identification documents after they are uploaded into the CMRA CRD. In such cases, CMRAs will have to collect a replacement copy and upload it if, upon review, the copy that has been uploaded is not legible or readable.

Comment: One commenter asked if a CMRA could retain a digital copy of each completed PS Form 1583 in lieu of the original signed paper copy.

Response: The Postal Service agrees that it is sufficient for the CMRA to retain a digital copy of each completed PS Form 1583 in lieu of the original signed paper copy. The final rule has been revised accordingly.

Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule specifying CMRAs have 30 days to comply with deficiencies after being notified by the Postal Service is an undue burden.

Response: The prior requirement was open ended and lacked specificity. The Postal Service submits that specifying a prescribed time period enhances predictability and promotes economy of administration for both the CMRA and the Postal Service.

Comment: Several commenters asked the Postal Service to provide for the receipt of the PS Form 1583 data and documents via an electronic transfer such as an Application Process Interface (API).

Response: The Postal Service is exploring the option of allowing an API process to upload these data. Such a facility would not be available in the first year; however, as it will require significant technical data definitions that the CMRA industry will have to match to correctly push the data.

Comment: Several commenters asked the Postal Service to create an online version of the PS Form 1583 that would allow PMB customers to complete the application online.

Response: Given the relationship between the CMRA and the PMB applicant and the need for in person identity proofing, the Postal Service determined to maintain the in-person application process between the CMRA and its customer.

Comment: One commenter asked whether the Postal Service would respond to law enforcement subpoenas served on CMRAs for PMB holder's data.

Response: The Postal Service will not respond to subpoenas addressed to a CMRA. Subpoenas addressed to a CMRA are the responsibility of the CMRA. The CMRA would normally respond to subpoena issued to the CMRA in so far as the records of the CMRA are sought. The Postal Service responds to court orders and subpoenas directed to the Postal Service and when legally required to do so.

Comment: One commenter asked if the Postal Service would provide the tools and software to scan identification documents.

Response: The Postal Service will not be providing the equipment necessary to scan identifications. The CMRA CRD will require a computer connected to the internet to access the database and will require CMRAs to be able to take digital pictures or scans that they can upload via the web-based application. None of the above will require unique or specialized equipment and is equipment commonly used by CMRAs.

Comment: One commenter asked the Postal Service to endorse a digital identity verification process, in addition to employee-facilitated verification, sufficient to meet the verification process for an individual seeking to be listed on PS Form 1583.

Response: The Postal Service requires either that:

• The PS Form 1583 be notarized, or

• The applicant's identity be verified in person by a CMRA employee.

Current subsections 1.8.1 through 1.8.4 will be renumbered as subsections 1.8.2 through 1.8.5. New subsection 508.1.8.1 will define what type of business is considered a CMRA and therefore must comply with the requirements in this section. The definitions are based on the type of service the business entity receives from the Postal Service. If an entity receives U.S. Mail for multiple customers and receives single point mail delivery from the Postal Service, it is considered a CMRA for purposes of complying with these requirements. There will be three specifically defined entities that must register as a CMRA and comply with these requirements: a CMRA that provides private mail boxes and accepts delivery of mail on behalf of another; an office business center (OBC) that provides private office facilities for others and receives single-point mail delivery from the Postal Service; and a reshipping or redelivery service that accepts delivery of mail on behalf of another for the purpose of reshipping or redelivering that mail either physically or electronically.

Renumbered subsection 1.8.2, Procedures, will be revised to require a CMRA owner must apply to operate a CMRA by submitting a completed PS Form 1583-A, Application to Act as a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency, and presenting acceptable, and not expired, form of Identification to the Post Office for review. If any of the information on PS Form 1583-A changes over time or becomes expired, the CMRA owner must submit an updated form to the Postal Service. The Postal Service will be scanning and uploading this form to the Postal Service's Facilities Database (FDB). The Postal Service will add a new item 1.8.2e to provide notice that CMRAs not in compliance with these regulations could be suspended and that CMRAs will have 30 days to come into compliance, and a new item 1.8.2f to affirmatively state that private mailboxes (PMBs) may not be used for unlawful activity.

Renumbered subsection 1.8.3, Delivery to a CMRA, will be revised to specify requirements related to PS Form 1583, Application for Delivery of Mail Through Agent, necessary with the implementation of the new CMRA Customer Registration Database. Item 1.8.3a will be revised to specify that a CMRA owner or manager will have to complete and submit a PS Form 1583 form themselves. Further, it will specify that spouses must each complete a separate PS Form 1583 if they both choose to receive mail at a single PMB address. The Postal Service is also specifying that the name and address information submitted on PS Form 1583 must match the photo and address verification documents provided with the application or the application will be rejected. Identification documents must be current (not expired). Any changes to the information on a PS Form 1583 will require the submission of a new PS Form 1583. Item 1.8.3c will be revised to specify that CMRA owners or managers will be required to enter the data from PS Form 1583 and upload copies of the supporting documents into the Postal Service's electronic CMRA Customer Registration Database rather than provide paper copies to their local Post Office. Item 1.8.3h will be revised to specify that CMRA owners or managers must enter the date PMBs close into the CMRA Customer Registration Database and that any expired, illegible, or unclear documents are not acceptable and will not be considered in compliance. Item 1.8.3i will be revised to specify that CMRA owners or manager must certify the information they submitted in the CMRA Customer Registration Database is current each quarter, with certifications due 15 days after the end of each quarter. Item 1.8.3j will be revised to specify that CMRAs will have 30 days to comply with deficiencies that are identified by the Postal Service. The Postal Service is adding a new item 1.8.3l to specify that the CMRA may be directed by the Chief Postal Inspector to withhold mail from delivery to an individual PMB and return that mail to the Postal Service.

Renumbered subsection 1.8.4, Addressee and CMRA Agreement, will be updated to describe the procedures when the relationship between a CMRA and PMB holder end. Item 1.8.4a will be revised to specify that CMRA owners or managers must record when a PMB closes, enter that date in the CMRA Customer Registration Database, and that they must maintain their records for six months after the PMB is closed. Item 1.8.4b will be revised to specify that if a CMRA reships, or otherwise re-mails the mail addressed to a PMB, whether physically or electronically, the CMRA must record on PS Form 1583 and in the CMRA Customer Registration Database the address to where they reship, remail or transmit the customer's mail. Additionally, if the mail is physically collected during the time period the PMB is active but remailed for the six month period after the PMB is closed, the remail address needs to be entered into the CMRA Customer Registration Database. Renumbered item 1.8.4d will be deleted as it is addressed in the revisions described above and item 1.8.4e will be deleted as to a separate provision for Restricted Mail, completion of a PS Form 1583 provides for an agent to receive all classes of mail. Items 1.8.4f and 1.8.4g will be renumbered as 1.8.4d and 1.8.4e.

The Postal Service is deleting renumbered 1.8.5, Office Business Center Acting as a CMRA, since office business centers (OBCs) are defined as CMRAs for purposes of this regulation as specified in new subsection 1.8.1, Commercial Mail Receiving Agency.

We believe this proposed revision will provide customers with a more efficient process for establishing a CMRA.

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.

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required under CAA section 107(d) to designate areas as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Those nonattainment areas are also classified by degree of nonattainment. Under subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, EPA designates areas found to be violating or contributing to violation of the PM 2.5 NAAQS as nonattainment and classifies them initially as Moderate nonattainment. Effective April 15, 2015, EPA designated Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, as Moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS based on ambient monitoring data that showed the area was above the 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) primary standard for the 2011-2013 monitoring period, based on the area's design value. 1 A design value (DV) is the 3-year average NAAQS metric that is compared to the NAAQS level to determine when a monitoring site is or is not meeting the NAAQS. The specific methodologies for calculating whether the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is met at each eligible monitoring site in an area are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.1.

Sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) of the CAA require EPA to determine whether a PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained by the applicable attainment date, “based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date.” Generally, this determination of whether an area's air quality meets the PM 2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date is based upon the most recent three years of complete, certified data gathered at eligible monitoring sites in accordance with 40 CFR 58.9. Section 188(c)(1) of the CAA requires that states with areas designated as Moderate PM 2.5 nonattainment areas provide for attainment in the area as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation. For areas initially designated under the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, this attainment date was December 31, 2021. 2

On February 8, 2023 (88 FR 8249), EPA published a proposed determination that the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by its December 31, 2021, “Moderate” area attainment date, for the reasons set forth in that proposed rulemaking. EPA's determination is based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2019-2021 period preceding the December 2021 attainment date. That data is available in EPA's AQS ambient air quality monitoring database. We explained in our proposed determination that, if finalized, the action would fulfill EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether the Allegheny County PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the Moderate attainment date. Further explanation of the specific details of and rationale for our determination that the nonattainment area attained the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date are explained in the proposed rule and will not be restated here.

EPA received one public comment letter in response to the February 8, 2023, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was submitted jointly by three environmental advocacy organizations (The Clean Air Council, The Environmental Integrity Project, and Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future). A summary of the comments received is set forth below. The full text of the comments is available in the docket for this action.

Comment: The proposed attainment determination for the Allegheny County PM 2.5 nonattainment area is a step in the EPA's process of evaluating whether to approve a subsequent state request for redesignation of the nonattainment area to attainment, per 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E). If EPA finalizes this proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date, the commenters' recommend that EPA not take action on the Commonwealth's November 29, 2022 request under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) to redesignate the Allegheny County nonattainment area to attainment for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS until EPA finishes its reconsideration of the PM 2.5 NAAQS set by the 2020 final decision on the primary ( i.e., health-based) and secondary ( i.e., welfare-based) PM NAAQS. 3 EPA published its proposed reconsideration of the December 2020 PM 2.5 NAAQS on January 27, 2023. The reconsideration proposed revising the primary annual PM 2.5 standard by lowering the level from 12.0 µg/m 3 to within the range of 9.0 to 10.0 µg/m 3 , while taking comment on alternative annual standard levels as low as 8.0 µg/m 3 and up to 11.0 µg/m 3 . 4 The commenters state that recent ambient air quality monitoring data obtained since the December 31, 2021, attainment date would likely require EPA to designate the area as nonattainment under the proposed revised annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, regardless of the final NAAQS level EPA establishes, because all of the proposed NAAQS values in the reconsideration are lower than the 2012 PM 2.5 annual NAAQS of 12.0 µg/m 3 . The commenters contend that taking separate action on a redesignation request under the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS would be a waste of EPA resources and could endanger public health and welfare in the interim period between any potential redesignation to attainment under the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and potential, future designation under a newly revised PM NAAQS.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their considered comments. However, the comments do not provide a reason for EPA to not make a final determination of attainment by the attainment date, for the reasons explained below.

First, EPA's determination whether a nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the established attainment date is a nondiscretionary, statutory duty placed on EPA by CAA section 179(c)(1), which requires that “as expeditiously as practicable after the applicable attainment date for any nonattainment area, but not later than six months after such date, the Administrator shall determine, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that date.” CAA section 188(b)(2) also places a nondiscretionary duty on EPA to determine, within six months following the applicable attainment date for a PM nonattainment area, whether the area attained the standard by that date. A judicial action has been filed by an environmental advocacy organization alleging that EPA has failed to perform this mandatory duty by the June 30, 2022 date required by CAA section 188(b)(2). 5 EPA is taking final action on the determination of attainment by the attainment date to fulfill a statutory obligation, which is an independent statutory requirement that applies regardless of pending redesignation requests or any revision to the NAAQS.

As such, comments related to Pennsylvania's November 29, 2022 submission requesting redesignation of the Allegheny County PM 2.5 nonattainment area to attainment are outside the scope of this action. This determination of attainment by the attainment date satisfies EPA's obligations under CAA sections 179 and 188 of the CAA to determine, “based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date,” whether the area attained the standard by that date. EPA's approval of a state's request to change the legal designation of an area from nonattainment to attainment for a specific NAAQS is subject to different statutory criteria. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).

Similarly, comments regarding air quality monitoring data and their relationship to potential future NAAQS are outside the scope of this action. Under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2), EPA is making its determination of attainment by the December 31, 2021, Moderate area attainment date based on the area's ambient air quality monitoring data as of the attainment date.

The PM NAAQS reconsideration is the subject of a separate, proposed EPA action, that took public comment until March 28, 2023. Information with respect to health or welfare impacts of PM or PM precursors at levels below the current NAAQS should have been submitted to the docket for the PM NAAQS reconsideration. 6

In conclusion, EPA has a nondiscretionary duty to determine whether a Moderate PM 2.5 nonattainment area has attained by the December 31, 2021, Moderate attainment date. The purpose of this action is to ascertain whether the area attained the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by the Moderate area deadline, and if not, to “bump up” the area to Serious. This determination of attainment by the attainment date is independent of any future EPA action on a state's request for redesignation of the area to attainment, or from future revision by EPA of the PM NAAQS.

Comment: The commenter contends that air quality monitoring data gathered subsequent to the December 31, 2021, Moderate area attainment date for the Allegheny County nonattainment area shows concerning PM 2.5 levels (though at monitored levels that do not show a violation of the NAAQS). Further, the commenters express concern that data from the Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor at the Liberty Monitor Site shows significantly higher PM 2.5 concentrations than data from the Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor used to determine the 2019-21 design value. Using only data from the Liberty FEM monitor from the 2019 to 2021 period, the commenter claims that the design value calculated using the appendix N methodology would result in an annual PM design value of 12.7 μg/m 3 , which is above the 2012 annual PM 2.5 standard of 12.0 μg/m 3 .

Response: As explained above, section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires that EPA make this determination “based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date.” The air quality monitoring data as of December 31, 2021, show that the area attained the NAAQS by that date. Additionally, certified air quality monitoring data in AQS for 2022 (subsequent to the attainment date of December 31, 2021), shows that the area continues to attain the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Regarding the claim that data from the FEM collocated with the Liberty FRM shows consistently higher levels of PM than the FRM in the years 2019 through 2021, EPA notes that the methodology for performing the PM 2.5 design value calculation is set forth at 40 CFR part 50 (National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards), appendix N (Interpretation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 2.5 ), at section 3.0 (Requirements for Data Use and Data Reporting for Comparisons with the NAAQS for PM 2.5 ). The PM 2.5 FRM monitor is designated as the primary monitor at the Liberty site, with the FEM monitor and a second FRM monitor designated as collocated monitors; therefore, the design value calculation is based on the primary FRM data but shall be augmented with the collocated FEM and FRM data when the primary FRM data is missing. 7 The purposes of both the Liberty FRMs and the FEM are described in section 10.2 of the Allegheny County Health Department's Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan for 2021, 8 and these purposes are consistent with the methodology in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. EPA may not deviate from 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, and Allegheny County's 2021 Air Monitoring Network Plan approved pursuant to 40 CFR 58.10 when calculating the design value for this determination of attainment. Following the methodology in appendix N results in a 2019-2021 PM 2.5 annual design value for the Liberty monitoring site of 11.2 µg/m 3 , which is less than the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 µg/m 3 .

For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking and summarized herein, EPA is taking final action under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) to determine that the Allegheny County PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by its December 31, 2021, attainment date. This action fulfills EPA's statutory obligation under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) to determine whether the Allegheny County PM 2.5 nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date. This determination does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. The Allegheny PM 2.5 nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines, pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the CAA, that the Allegheny PM 2.5 nonattainment area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to meet the standard for 10 years.

This rulemaking action constitutes a determination of attainment of the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this determination of attainment:

• 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); and

• 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;

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.” Due to the nature of the action being taken, this action is expected to have neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 18, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action 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 to determine that the Allegheny County nonattainment area attained the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS by its attainment date may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to the EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP revision that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains the infrastructure SIP requirements, which generally relate to the information, authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program. These infrastructure SIP requirements (or “elements”) required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate pollution abatement and international air pollution.

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), and visibility protection.

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal of modeling data.

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i) section 110(a)(2)(C), to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment new source review (NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address requirements for the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone (“the 2015 ozone NAAQS”), triggering a requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs within three years of promulgation of the revised NAAQS. The 2015 ozone NAAQS revised the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by lowering the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. 1

The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) made a submittal addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on September 28, 2018 (“Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittal”). 2 It included separate sections for Clark County  3 and Washoe County. 4 We refer to each individual section as that agency's or County's portion of the submittal. In accordance with CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the infrastructure SIP became complete by operation of law on March 28, 2019.

On January 11, 2023, we proposed to approve and partially approve Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittal for the requirements of the following sections of the CAA:  5 6

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

• 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Program for enforcement of control measures (full approval), and regulation of new stationary sources (approval for Clark County only) and minor sources (full approval).

• 110(a)(2)(D) (in part, see below): Interstate Pollution Transport.

○ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)—interference with PSD (prong 3) (approval for Clark County only).

○ 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)—interstate pollution abatement (approval for Clark County only) and international air pollution (full approval).

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.

• 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government officials, public notification (conditional approval for NDEP and Washoe County, full approval for Clark County), and PSD and visibility protection (full approval for Clark County only).

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data.

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

As part of our proposed action on Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittal, we proposed to approve a state regulation into the Nevada SIP. Specifically, we proposed to approve into the SIP a new version of Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445B.22097, which revises the 8-hour ozone standard in the Nevada standards table from 0.075 to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) to be consistent with the 2015 ozone NAAQS and deletes the “National Standards” and “Method” columns because both are for reference only and are often out-of-date compared to the referenced federal regulations.

The EPA proposed to conditionally approve portions of the NDEP and Washoe County Infrastructure SIP Submittals addressing the public notification requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on commitments from NDEP and Washoe County to adopt and submit specific enforceable measures to address the deficiencies identified in our proposed rulemaking. 7

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0594 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 18, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0594, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express.

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

In the Federal Register of February 11, 2020 (85 FR 7708) (FRL-10005-02), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11316) by Verto Solutions on behalf of The Clorox Company, 4900 Johnson Dr., Pleasanton, CA 94588. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3,3-trimethyl-2-norbornanyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 13851-11-1); 1H-Indole (CAS Reg. No. 120-72-9); 2,6-Octadien-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-,(Z)- (CAS Reg. No. 106-25-2); 2-Decenal (CAS Reg. No. 3913-71-1); 2-Hexenal, (2E)- (CAS Reg. No. 6728-26-3); 2-Methyl-3-(p-isopropylphenyl)propionaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 103-95-7); 2-Methyl-4-phenyl-2-butanol (CAS Reg. No. 103-05-9); 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde (CAS Reg. No. 93-53-8); 2-Phenylpropionaldehyde dimethyl acetal (CAS Reg. No. 90-87-9); α-Pinene (CAS Reg. No. 80-56-8); β-Caryophyllene (CAS Reg. No. 87-44-5); Bicyclo(2.2.1)heptan-2-ol, 1,3,3-trimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 1632-73-1); Bicyclo(2.2.1)heptan-2-ol, 1,7,7-trimethyl-,propanoate, exo- (CAS Reg. No. 2756-56-1); Bicyclo[3.1.1]heptane, 6,6-dimethyl-2-methylene- (CAS Reg. No. 127-91-3); Butanoic acid, 1,1-dimethyl-2-phenylethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 10094-34-5); Celery seed oil (CAS Reg. No. 8015-90-5); Citronellal (CAS Reg. No. 106-23-0);Cyclohexene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethylidene)- (CAS Reg. No. 586-62-9); Dimethylbenzylcarbinyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 151-05-3); Elemi oil (Canarium spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8023-89-0); Ethyl (2E,4Z)-2,4-decadienoate (CAS Reg. No. 3025-30-7); Galbanum oil (Ferula spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8023-91-4); γ -Terpinene (CAS Reg. No. 99-85-4); Isoborneol (CAS Reg. No. 124-76-5); Isobornyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 125-12-2); Labdanum oil (Cistus spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8016-26-0); laevo-Bornyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 5655-61-8); Mace oil (Myristica fragrans Houtt.) (CAS Reg. No. 8007-12-3); Methyl 2-nonenoate (CAS Reg. No. 111-79-5); Methyl 2-nonynoate (CAS Reg. No. 111-80-8); Methyl anthranilate (CAS Reg. No. 134-20-3); Methyl heptine carbonate (CAS Reg. No. 111-12-6); Methyl N-methylanthranilate (CAS Reg. No. 85-91-6); Nerolidol (isomer unspecified) (CAS Reg. No. 7212-44-4); Nona-2-trans-6-cis-dienal (CAS Reg. No. 557-48-2); Oil of lemon (CAS Reg. No. 8008-56-8); Oil of lemongrass (CAS Reg. No. 8007-02-1); Oils, clove (CAS Reg. No. 8000-34-8); Oils, ginger (CAS Reg. No. 8007-08-7); Oils, grapefruit (CAS Reg. No. 8016-20-4); Oils, lime (CAS Reg. No. 8008-26-2); Oils, orange, sweet, terpene-free (CAS Reg. No. 68606-94-0); Olibanum oil (Boswellia spp.) (CAS Reg. No. 8016-36-2); Oxacycloheptadec-10-ene-2-one (CAS Reg. No. 28645-51-4); p-Cymene (CAS Reg. No. 99-87-6); Phenol, 2-methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)- (CAS Reg. No. 97-53-0); p-Methylanisole (CAS Reg. No. 104-93-8); Tangerine oil (Citrus reticulata blanco) (CAS Reg. No. 8008-31-9); Ylang-ylang oils (CAS Reg. No. 8006-81-3); when used as inert ingredients (fragrance components) in pesticide formulations applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment with end-use concentrations not to exceed 100 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Verto Solutions on behalf of The Clorox Company, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. When making a safety determination for an exemption for the requirement of a tolerance, FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to consider the considerations in section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA's consideration in making safety determinations, e.g., the validity, completeness, and reliability of available data, nature of toxic effects, available information concerning the cumulative effects of the pesticide chemical and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate exposure levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances, among other factors.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for the various fragrance components identified in Unit II of this document, including exposure resulting from the exemptions established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with these various fragrance components follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by the various fragrance components identified in Unit II, as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, are discussed in this unit.

The Agency assessed these fragrance components via the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach as outlined by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in their 2019 guidance document on the use of TTC in food safety assessment. Information regarding the database of studies and chemicals used to derive TTCs are reviewed therein. The TTC approach has been used by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations' (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization (JECFA), the former Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency, and EFSA.

Information from JECFA reports as well as predictive toxicology using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) Toolbox was used to confirm that the fragrances listed in Unit II have low carcinogenic potential and are thus good candidates for the application of the TTC method. Although 27 chemicals had in silico carcinogenicity alerts, JECFA concluded and EPA concurs that all fragrances listed in Unit II have low carcinogenic potential, based on in vitro and/or in vivo genotoxicity studies available on the chemical or structurally related chemicals. Therefore, the TTC method can be applied to these fragrances.

TTCs are derived from a conservative and rigorous approach to establish generic threshold values for human exposure at which a very low probability of adverse effects is likely. By comparing a range of compounds by Cramer Class (classes I, II, and III which correspond to the probability of low, moderate and high toxicity) and NOEL (no-observed-effect-level), fifth percentile NOELs were established for each Cramer Class as “Human Exposure Thresholds”. These values were 3, 0.91 and 0.15 mg/kg/day for classes I, II, and III, respectively.

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

The human exposure threshold value for threshold ( i.e., non-cancer) risks is based upon Cramer structural class. All of the fragrance components listed in Unit II are in Cramer Class I, which is defined as chemicals of simple structure and efficient modes of metabolism, suggesting low oral toxicity. Therefore, the NOEL of 3 mg/kg/day is selected as the point of departure for all exposure scenarios assessed (chronic dietary, incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposures).

1. Dietary exposure. In evaluating dietary exposure to each of the fragrance components listed in Unit II ( e.g., ingesting foods that come in contact with surfaces treated with pesticide formulations containing these fragrance components, and drinking water exposures), EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemptions at a concentration not to exceed 100 ppm for each of the listed fragrance components as well as any other sources of dietary exposure. EPA assessed dietary exposures from the fragrance components listed in Unit II in food as follows:

The dietary assessment for food contact sanitizer solutions calculated the Daily Dietary Dose (DDD) and the Estimated Daily Intake (EDI). The assessment considered application rates, residual solution or quantity of solution remaining on the treated surface without rinsing with potable water, surface area of the treated surface which comes into contact with food, pesticide migration fraction, and body weight. These assumptions are based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

The fragrance components listed in Unit II may be used as inert ingredients in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. The Agency conducted a conservative assessment of potential residential exposure by assessing various fragrance components in disinfectant-type uses (indoor scenarios). The Agency's assessment of adult residential exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hard surface, wiping, and aerosol spray uses. The Agency's assessment of children's residential exposure includes total post-application exposures associated with contact with treated indoor surfaces (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).

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

EPA has not found the fragrance components listed in Unit II to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, nor do they appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of the tolerance exemptions established in this rule, therefore, EPA has assumed that the fragrance components listed in Unit II do not have common mechanisms of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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

The FQPA SF has been reduced to 1X in this risk assessment because clear NOELs and LOELs were established in the studies used to derive the endpoints (which included developmental and reproductive toxicity studies), maternal and developmental-specific 5th percentile NOELs indicate low potential for offspring susceptibility, and the conservative assumptions made in the exposure assessment are unlikely to underestimate risk.

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

1. Acute aggregate risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effects resulting from a single oral exposure were identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected for any of the fragrance components listed in Unit II. Therefore, these fragrance components are not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Short-term aggregate risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). For residential handler short-term exposure scenarios, MOEs ranged from 140 to 2,500, while for residential post-application exposure scenarios, MOEs ranged from 380 to 7,400. These MOEs are greater than the level of concern (LOC) of 100 and therefore are not of concern. The short-term aggregate MOE is 109 for adults and 135 for children, which are greater than the LOC of 100 and therefore are not of concern.

3. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, the fragrance components listed in Unit II are not currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for these fragrance components.

4. Chronic aggregate risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to the fragrance components listed in Unit II from food and water will utilize 19% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 48% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Chronic residential exposure to residues of these fragrance components is not expected. Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is equal to the chronic dietary exposure for children 1 to 2 years old (48% of the cPAD).

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. There is low concern for genotoxicity/carcinogenicity in humans for the fragrance components listed in Unit II of this document. Therefore, the assessment under the TTC value for non-cancer risks is protective for all risks, including carcinogenicity.

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

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of the fragrance components listed in Unit II of this document in or on any food commodities. EPA is, however, establishing limitations on the amount of these fragrance components that may be used in antimicrobial pesticide formulations. These limitations will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that contains these fragrance components in excess of 100 ppm in the final pesticide formulation.

Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established for residues of the various fragrance components listed in Unit II of this document when used as inert ingredients (fragrance components) in pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils with an end-use concentration not to exceed 100 ppm under 40 CFR 180.940(a).

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

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

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0173 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 18, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although the Office of the Administrative Law Judges, which houses the Hearing Clerk, encourages parties to file objections and hearing requests electronically. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0173, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.

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

In the Federal Register of March 24, 2023 (88 FR 17778) (FRL-10579-02), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11504) by Landis International, Inc., 3185 Madison Highway, Valdosta, GA 31603, on behalf of CJB Applied Technologies, LLC, 1105 Innovation Way, P.O. Box 5724, Valdosta, GA 31603. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of benzyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 100-51-6) when used as an inert ingredient (adjuvant) in pesticide formulations applied to crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest, limited to no more than 60% by weight in the pesticide formulation. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Landis International, Inc., on behalf of CJB Applied Technologies, LLC, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

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

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

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

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by benzyl alcohol as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

Benzyl alcohol exhibits low acute oral and inhalation toxicity, while acute dermal toxicity is moderate. Benzyl alcohol shows none to weakly irritating properties to the skin, but it is not a skin sensitizer.

Based on the available repeated-dose toxicity data on benzyl alcohol, the central nervous system is a major target organ in rats and mice. In rats, mortality, staggering, labored breathing, lethargy, and necrosis of the denta gyrus of the hippocampus are seen at 800 mg/kg/day following dosing in a 13-week oral toxicity study via gavage. In mice, lethargy is seen at 500 mg/kg/day and staggering at 800 mg/kg/day following dosing in a 16-day and 13-week oral toxicity study via gavage, respectively. Maternal (mortality, reduced body weights, clinical signs of neurotoxicity) and offspring (reduced bodyweight) toxicity are seen in mice at 750 mg/kg/day in a developmental toxicity study. No adverse effects are seen in rats at 750 mg/kg/day in a developmental toxicity study. Due to the neurotoxic effects seen following dosing in the 13-week oral toxicity studies in rats and mice at 800 mg/kg/day, the highest doses tested in the chronic/carcinogenicity studies were 400 and 200 mg/kg/day for rats and mice, respectively. No systemic toxicity or treatment related tumors were seen in rats or mice at these doses.

Neurotoxicity studies are not available for review. However, signs of neurotoxicity are seen in mice (lethargy) at 500 mg/kg/day following dosing in a 16-day oral toxicity study and in rats (staggering, labored breathing, lethargy, necrosis of the denta gyrus of the hippocampus) and mice (staggering) at 800 mg/kg/day in a 13-week oral toxicity study via gavage. However, clear NOAELs were established for these effects and the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) of 4 mg/kg/day and the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 2 mg/kg/day are protective of the neurotoxic effects observed at 500 mg/kg/day and 800 mg/kg/day in the rat and mouse, respectively. Therefore, there is no concern for neurotoxicity.

Immunotoxicity studies are not available for review. Thymic congestion, hemorrhage, and atrophy were observed at 800 mg/kg/day in rats in a 13-week oral toxicity study via gavage. However, a clear NOAEL was established for these effects and the cPAD (2 mg/kg/day) is protective of the immunotoxic effects observed at 800 mg/kg/day. Therefore, there is no concern for immunotoxicity.

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

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

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to benzyl alcohol, EPA considered exposure that may occur from the existing and proposed uses of benzyl alcohol. EPA assessed dietary exposures from benzyl alcohol in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring after a single exposure. Such effects were identified for benzyl alcohol. Acute dietary (food only) exposure and risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 4.02. This software uses 2005-2010 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). The current assessment includes every commodity available in DEEM.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment using DEEM-FCID, Version 4.02, EPA used food consumption information from USDA's 2005-2010 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for benzyl alcohol. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Update to D361707: Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (12/21/2021) and can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090.

In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest levels of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. However, to account for the proposed uses of benzyl alcohol up to 60% by weight in pesticide formulations, EPA assumed a 60% concentration of benzyl alcohol in the dietary exposure assessment.

The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products are generally at least 50 percent of the product and often can be much higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient; rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active ingredient. Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level. This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity. Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In other words, EPA assumed 100 percent of all foods are treated with the inert ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, EPA chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when distributed in commerce.

Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for benzyl alcohol, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, flea and tick control on pets and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

Benzyl alcohol is currently approved for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticides and nonfood use pesticides ( e.g., pet spot-on treatments; products used on lawn, turf, or gardens) that could result in short-term residential exposure. Although benzyl alcohol is approved as an active ingredient, currently there are no active registrations for its use as an active ingredient. Short-term residential exposure for adults combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hard surface, aerosol sprays with high-end post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns and results in an MOE of 161. Short-term residential exposure for children includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures) and results in an MOE of 540. Because EPA's level of concern (LOC) for benzyl alcohol is an MOE below 100, these MOEs are not of concern.

Intermediate-term residential exposure for adults includes high-end post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns and results in an MOE of 3800. Intermediate-term residential exposure for children includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures) and results in an MOE of 2,000. Because EPA's LOC for benzyl alcohol is an MOE below 100, these MOEs are not of concern.

Benzyl alcohol is also used in products such as cosmetics and personal care products that could result in short-, intermediate- and long-term exposures. The International Fragrance Association calculated a dermal exposure of 0.042 mg/kg/day using the reported 97.5th percentile concentration based on the levels of the same fragrance ingredient in ten of the most frequently used personal care and cosmetic products ( i.e., anti-perspirant, bath products, body lotion, eau de toilette, face cream, fragrance cream, hair spray, shampoo, shower gel, and toilet soap). An inhalation exposure level of 0.0026 mg/kg/day was calculated based on the combined (fine fragrances, hair sprays, antiperspirants/deodorants, candles, aerosol air fresheners, and reed diffusers/heated oil plug-ins) result calculated using the Research Institute for Fragrance Material, Inc. (RIFM) 2-Box/MPPD in silico models, based on the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) survey results for the 97.5th percentile use in hydro alcoholics for a 60 kg individual. Total systemic exposure due to use in cosmetics and personal care products is 0.0446 mg/kg/day. The MOE is 5605. Because EPA's LOC for benzyl alcohol is an MOE below 100, this MOE is not of concern.

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

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

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

The Agency has concluded that there is reliable data to determine that infants and children will be safe if the FQPA SF of 10x is reduced to 1X for the following reasons. The toxicity database for benzyl alcohol is adequate, it contains developmental toxicity studies in the mouse and a four-generation reproduction toxicity study in the rat. No fetal susceptibility or reproduction toxicity is observed in these studies. Lethargy is observed in mice at 500 mg/ kg/day following dosing in a 16-day oral toxicity study. In a 13-week oral toxicity study, staggering, labored breathing, lethargy, and necrosis of the denta gyrus of the hippocampus were observed in rats, and staggering was observed in mice at 800 mg/kg/day. Thymic congestion, hemorrhage, and atrophy were observed in rats at 800 mg/kg/day in a 13-week oral toxicity study. However, clear NOAELs were established for these effects and the selected points of departure (PODs) are based on the neurological effects observed at 500 mg/kg/day and are protective of the immunological effects observed at 800 mg/kg/day. Therefore, there is no concern for potential neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. Based on the adequacy of the toxicity database, the conservative nature of the exposure assessment and the lack of concern for prenatal and postnatal sensitivity, the Agency has concluded that there is reliable data to determine that infants and children will be safe if the FQPA SF of 10x is reduced to 1x.

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

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to benzyl alcohol will occupy 74% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into account chronic exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to benzyl alcohol from food and water will utilize 61% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

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

Benzyl alcohol may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to benzyl alcohol.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and residential pesticide and non-pesticide exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 112 for adults. Adult residential pesticide exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hard surface aerosol spray with high-end post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has concluded the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and residential pesticide and non-pesticide exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 123 for children. Children's residential pesticide exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). Because EPA's LOC for benzyl alcohol is an MOE below 100, these MOEs are not of concern.

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

Benzyl alcohol may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to benzyl alcohol.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 337 for adults. Adult residential pesticide exposure combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor hard surface aerosol spray with a high-end post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has concluded the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential pesticide and non-pesticide exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 147 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). Because EPA's LOC for benzyl alcohol is an MOE below 100, these MOEs are not of concern.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, benzyl alcohol is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to benzyl alcohol residues. More detailed information on this action can be found in the document titled “Benzyl Alcohol Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support an Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations” in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0173.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of benzyl alcohol in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of benzyl alcohol that may be used in pesticide formulations. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that exceeds 60% benzyl alcohol in the final pesticide formulation.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of benzyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 100-51-6) when used as an inert ingredient (adjuvant) in pesticide formulations applied to crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910, limited to no more than 60% by weight in the pesticide formulation.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

I. Background

GSA is issuing a final rule amending 41 CFR part 105-64, GSA Privacy Act Rules, to implement the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017. The proposed rule was published on October 7, 2022, at 87 FR 60955.

The Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 (the Act) (Pub. L. 115-59; 42 U.S.C. 405 note), which was signed on September 15, 2017, restricts Federal agencies from including individuals' SSNs on documents sent by mail, unless the head of the agency determines that the inclusion of the SSN on the document is necessary (section 2(a) of the Act). The Act requires agency heads to issue regulations specifying the circumstances under which inclusion of a SSN on a document sent by mail is necessary. These regulations, which must be issued not later than five years after the date of enactment, shall include instructions for the partial redaction of SSNs where feasible, and shall require that SSNs not be visible on the outside of any package sent by mail (section 2(b) of the Act). This rule would revise the Agency regulations under the Privacy Act (41 CFR part 105-64), consistent with these requirements in the Act. The rule would clarify the language of procedural requirements pertaining to the inclusion of SSNs on documents that the Agency sends by mail. These revisions are necessary to implement the Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, which restricts the inclusion of Social Security account Numbers (SSNs) on documents sent by mail by the Federal Government.

There are no significant changes, as the comments were supportive of the rule. GSA did change the regulatory text from the published proposed rule, but the changes are not substantive (merely reorganizing the prior content for readability and to avoid redundancy).

GSA received two (2) comments from the public. GSA acknowledge the respondents' support for the rule. GSA did not change the regulatory text of the definition from the published proposed rule.

Comment: The proposed amendment by GSA is positively impacting US citizens' information security by protecting their personal information, specifically their social security number. This rule defines the requirement to not include a social security number unless determined necessary by the head of the agency. However, clarification is required on the process to obtain a determination by the head of the agency such that there is not an increased burden on business to understand this process. In addition, the rule states that social security numbers can only be included if required by law. It is the best interest of the people to identify which laws would require this information and validate that is still true. In general, this rule provides minimal economic impact to the people, provides increased information security and we are in support if the above items are clarified in the documentation. If no such clarification is provided, it could lead to confusion and economic impact for businesses trying to follow the rule. Finally, cyber security should be as important as mail fraud and this rule should also apply to electronic transmission of documents with social security numbers. As a US citizen I recommend applying this in both written and electronic communication since the fraud of my identity could mean substantial harm financially and emotionally for myself.

Response: Although the Comment requests more clarity around the process for determining which documents are on the Un-redacted SSN Mailed Document List, GSA finds that the rule as written provides appropriate flexibility to arrive at a list in implementation of the statute while involving necessary agency stakeholders such as GSA-IT and GSA Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Subsequent to the posting of the final rule, GSA intends to make available on the GSA publicly facing privacy page ( www.gsa.gov/reference/gsa-privacy-program ) the specific documents for which the inclusion of the Social Security account number (SSN) is determined to be necessary to fulfill a compelling Agency business need. GSA will review on a regular basis the laws and authorities that would require an un-redacted social security number on mailed documents. GSA handles the transmission of electronic documents in accordance with the Privacy Act.

Comment: The proposed rule will provide members of government agencies with greater clarity. I believe providing a clear understanding pertaining to the inclusion of full Social Security numbers on documents sent via U.S. mail will provide confidence in senders and receivers of these correspondences. Many Americans have been victims of identity theft, the steps and feelings involved in the process are uncomforting and time consuming. After reviewing the proposed standards for agencies to follow I believe they are easy to comprehend and leave little room for question. I thank you for investing time and efforts into this proposed rule.

Response: GSA acknowledges this comment.

GSA does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This rule does not impose a requirement for small businesses to report or keep records on any of the requirements contained in this rule.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OIRA has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.

OIRA has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, generally provides that before a “major 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 General Services Administration will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A major rule under the CRA cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register .

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This rule does not impose a requirement for small businesses to report or keep records on any of the requirements contained in this rule. Therefore, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the GSPMR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA amends 41 CFR part 105-64 as set forth below:

I. History of This Action

Updating the LSC OIG Audit Guide and appendices is essential in fulfilling the OIG's responsibility for oversight. The LSC OIG Audit Guide and appendices provide a uniform approach for audits of LSC recipients and describe recipients' responsibilities with respect to such audits. Audits of recipients are to be performed in accordance with this LSC OIG Audit Guide and Compliance Supplement (Appendix A), among other criteria. The LSC OIG Audit Guide and the Compliance Supplement give auditors guidance in planning and performing audits to accomplish audit objectives.

Significant changes include eliminating the requirement to classify LSC recipients as High-Risk; adding a requirement to consider all LSC funds as major programs regardless of spending threshold; and revising suggested audit procedures for changes to 45 CFR 1635—Timekeeping Requirement. The appendix designations have changed because we eliminated the appendices addressing a Sample Audit Agreement and Guide for Procurement of Audit Services. Information on these topics is readily available from other sources.

The LSC OIG received three comments during the public comment period. All comments were on the Compliance Supplement. The commenters were McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC, the LSC OIG Quality Control Review contractor; Eide Bailly, an LSC recipient Independent Public Accountant; and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA), a non-LSC funded non-profit, in cooperation with experienced Chief Financial Officers of legal aid organizations and the NLADA Regulations Committee. One NLADA comment strongly supported the proposed change to the Overview section stating that LSC recipients do not have to be classified as high risk. All comments generally support the LSC OIG changes.

We also received comments for changes to accounting guidance. OIG does not issue accounting guidance and forwarded these comments to LSC. NLADA strongly supported the LSC OIG's decision to no longer require that LSC recipients be classified as High Risk. The NLADA also commented that it generally does not favor blanket requirements but does not oppose the LSC OIG requirement that all LSC funds be classified as major programs. LSC recipients must have an annual audit and classifying the funds as a major program does not add a burden to LSC recipients. One comment was to correct a typographical error which was corrected. The remaining comments will be discussed in Section III, Detailed Discussion of Comments.

Comment —The commenter, McBride Lock & Associates, stated that Part 1628 refers to an analysis of fund balance to determine whether a waiver is required to carryover LSC funds. The commenter further noted that this has been confusing for IPAs since LSC issued Program Letter 20-4, Revenue Recognition Guidance. The commentor stated that the regulatory reference uses the term fund balance, and this section should include a definition of fund balance for purposes of calculating the carryover amount.

Response —The LSC OIG agreed with this suggestion and updated the second paragraph on page 58. This section now includes the LSC Financial Guide's, section 3.3 definition of fund balance.

Comment —The commentor, Eide Bailly, suggested that the following compliance requirement be revised to include relevant regulatory language. “Recipients may request a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 10% of LSC support pursuant to 45 CFR 1628.3. Absent a waiver, recipients must repay a fund balance in excess of 10% of LSC support. If a waiver of the 10% ceiling is granted, the recipient must repay any fund balance in excess of the amount permitted to be retained. (45 CFR 1628.3)

The commentor suggested the text read, “Recipients may request a waiver to retain a fund balance in excess of 10% of LSC support pursuant to 45 CFR 1638.3. Absent a waiver, recipients must repay a fund balance in excess of 10% of LSC support. If a waiver of the 10% ceiling is granted, the recipient may retain up to the amount permitted in the waiver but must repay any fund balance in excess of the amount permitted to be retained. (45 CFR 1628.3).

Response —The LSC OIG agreed with the suggested change and updated Appendix A, Compliance Supplement.

Comment —The commentor, McBride Lock & Associates suggested changing the language in the Part 1635—Timekeeping Requirement section from, “. . . how the recipient has revised its timekeeping policies to comply . . .” to “. . . how the recipient has established its timekeeping policies to comply . . .”

Response —The LSC OIG agreed with the comment and made this change.

Comment —NLADA suggested two clarifications in the Part 1635—Timekeeping Requirement section. The comment was to add a reference to the LSC Financial Guide in Section 2b noting that the LSC Financial Guide lists timekeeping requirements. NLADA also suggested that LSC OIG clarify the “minimum sample size of 20 timesheets” in 3. Audit Procedures—Substantive. The suggested clarification is to be clear that one timesheet means a timesheet of one pay period for one employee.

Response —The LSC OIG agreed with these suggestions and added a reference to the LSC Financial Guide and added language to clarify the sample size.

For the reasons stated above, the Legal Services Corporation Office of Inspector General revises the LSC OIG Audit Guide for Recipients and Auditors. The revised LSC OIG Audit Guide for Recipients and Auditors and its appendices are available on the LSC OIG website at: Audit Guidance (lsc.gov) .

The Audit Guide and appendices contain references to other documents, such as LSC program letters and forms. We plan to update these references as they are modified.

The Commission received four comments in response to the direct final rule (DFR) titled “Update of Existing FMC User Fees.” Three of the four comments received did not include information relevant to this rulemaking. One comment addressed the substance of the DFR. None of the comments received were significant adverse comments nor were they within the scope of the rulemaking.

In the comment from Atlantic Pacific Tariffs, Inc. (AP Tariffs), AP Tariffs states that it opposes the proposed increase in fees. However, AP Tariffs's comment is not a significant adverse comment. AP Tariffs takes issue with proposed increases in fees for new U.S.-based company license applications and argues this would exacerbate the troubling trend of predominantly foreign companies obtaining Commission registrations. The DFR cannot address this concern because the fees are the same for all applicants regardless of whether an applicant is U.S.-based or foreign. Thus, the commenter seems to be asking for different fees for U.S.-based versus foreign entities to prioritize the interests of U.S.-based companies. Because this rule does not address substantive changes to the underlying regulations and who should be subject to the fee, this argument is outside the scope of the DFR.

AP Tariffs also argues that increasing the fees would create a financial burden for aspiring American companies seeking to enter the maritime industry, would be counterproductive to fostering domestic entrepreneurship, and would exacerbate the trend of foreign entities obtaining Commission registrations at the expense of U.S. based companies. AP Tariffs argues that the Commission should reconsider any fee increases for new U.S.-based companies and prioritize the interests of U.S. based companies. All of these comments are outside the scope of the User Fees rule because they do not challenge the methodology of calculating the fees, which is the focus of this rule.

Finally, AP Tariffs argues that the Commission should incrementally increase fees as the agency does in the Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties rule. The Commission already increases these fees incrementally by issuing biennial updates, consistent with the guidance in OMB Circular A-25.

In the DFR, the Commission noted that “the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the amounts charged for Commission services, and any substantive changes to the underlying regulations governing those services or related requirements would be outside this scope. Accordingly, comments on the underlying regulations and related requirements will not be considered adverse. Filed comments that are not adverse may be considered for modifications to the Commission's regulations at a future date.” 88 FR 16894, 16896, (Mar. 21, 2023). As such, the Commission will take into consideration the changes mentioned in this comment when considering future substantive changes to the underlying regulations.

For the foregoing reasons, none of the comments received are considered significant adverse comments. The DFR will therefore go into effect as scheduled.

I. Background

On March 27, 2023, GSA amended the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) through a final rule (88 FR 18074). The document contained a web link that has been updated, therefore, this technical amendment updates the CFR by correcting the link at GSAR 552.204-9 in paragraph (a).

Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 552 by making the following technical amendment:

The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: the private angling component, and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational ACL (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. The Federal for-hire component's red snapper annual catch target (ACT) is 9 percent below the for-hire component quota (87 FR 74014, December 2, 2022; 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)).

The red snapper for-hire component seasonal closure is projected from the component's ACT. Projecting the for-hire component's seasonal closure using the ACT reduces the likelihood of the harvest exceeding the component quota and the total recreational quota.

All weights described in this temporary rule are in round weight.

The current Federal for-hire component ACT for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ is 2,904,682 lb (1,317,542 kg) (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)). However, on February 28, 2023, NMFS published a proposed rule that would revise red snapper catch levels (88 FR 12642). If implemented, that rule would increase the Federal for-hire component ACT to 3,076,322 lb (1,395,396 kg).

The 2023 Federal Gulf red snapper for-hire fishing season has been determined to be 85 days based on NMFS' projection of the date landings are expected to reach the component ACT. The season length projections range from 69-85 days (current) to 73 to 90 days (proposed). NMFS determined that 85 days is likely to constrain harvest to the current or proposed ACT based on catch rates from the most recent 3 years (2020-2022). When using average red snapper for-hire catch rates from those years, NMFS projects that the current quota would be harvested in 85 days. When using only data from 2022, NMFS projects that the proposed quota would be harvested in 85 days. For details about the calculation of the projection for 2023, see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/sustainable-fisheries/gulf-mexico-recreational-red-snapper-management. Therefore, the 2023 recreational season for the Federal for-hire component will begin at 12:01 a.m., local time, on June 1, 2023, and close at 12:01 a.m., local time, on August 25, 2023.

On and after the effective date of the Federal for-hire component closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper for Federal for-hire vessels are zero. When the Federal for-hire component is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal for-hire permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters. In addition, a person aboard a vessel that has been issued a charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish any time during the fishing year may not harvest or possess red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ when the Federal charter vessel/headboat component is closed.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the recreational red snapper quotas and ACTs, and the rule implementing the requirement to close the for-hire component when its ACT is projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because many for-hire operations book trips for clients in advance and require as much notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their business plans to account for the fishing season.