The FDIC has concluded that good cause exists to publish this rule as final without a period of notice and comment and with an effective date as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register because this final rule will only make purely technical corrections and in no way affects or changes any substantive requirements under the DIMIA or its implementing regulation.

The Agencies jointly proposed an adjustment of the thresholds for the major assets prohibition of the DIMIA through a NPR published at 84 FR 604 (Jan. 31, 2019). In addition to an adjustment of the thresholds for the major assets prohibition by means of the NPR, the FDIC will use this opportunity to make two technical corrections to FDIC Regulations, both relevant to DIMIA implementation. The first correction pertains to 12 CFR 303.249 and would remove an erroneous statement. The second pertains to 12 CFR 348.4(i) and would correct a citation. Both technical corrections are explained in further detail below.

12 CFR part 303 of FDIC Regulations pertains to filing procedures. Section 303.249(c)(3) currently states that an applicant seeking an exemption under either § 348.5 or § 348.6 of the FDIC DIMIA regulation needs to provide certain information in connection with an application for an interlocks exemption. The reference to § 348.5 is wrong. This section pertains to the small market share exemption, which was specifically designed by the Federal depository institutions regulatory agencies to be self-executing, that is, an application to the FDIC is not required for the exemption to be effective. 1 The incorrect statement will therefore be removed.

Section 348.4 pertains to statutory exemptions from the Interlocks Act prohibitions. Section 348.4(i) sets forth the exemption for a management interlock where a director of an unaffiliated depository organization serves as a management official of a diversified savings and loan holding company as that term is defined in section 10(a)(1)(F) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a(a)(1)(F). Section 348.4(i)(3) incorrectly refers to preceding paragraph (h) when it should refer to paragraph (i). This incorrect citation will therefore be corrected.

As noted previously, these two changes to the FDIC Regulations are purely technical, done to correct an erroneous statement and a citation. Since these are merely technical amendments, public notice and comment is unnecessary nor is there any need for a delayed effective date.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require an agency to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register if an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  2 The FDIC finds that for purposes of making purely technical corrections, good cause exists to not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and, therefore, is issuing this rule as a final rule.

Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that, for good cause found and published with the rule, an agency does not have to comply with the requirement that a substantive rule be published not less than 30 days before its effective date. 3 The final rule will be effective immediately upon its publication in the Federal Register . The FDIC invokes the good cause exception to the APA's 30-day publication requirement for the reasons discussed above.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), requires an agency, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, to prepare an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (defined by the Small Business Administration for purposes of the RFA to include banking entities with total assets of $550 million or less) or to certify that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA also requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities. Neither an IRFA nor FRFA is required, however, if the rule is issued under the APA provision allowing the agency to forego notice and comment rulemaking for good cause. Therefore, the FDIC has not prepared either an IRFA or an FRFA in connection with this final rule. Nevertheless, the FDIC notes that the final rule does not impose any burden on small banking entities as it only makes technical corrections to already existing requirements.

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC reviewed the rule and determined that it does not create any new, or revise any existing, collection of information under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Consequently, no information collection request will be submitted to the OMB for review.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121).

The FDIC has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the federal banking agencies to use plain language in all final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

Under the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4802, (RCDRIA), there is a requirement that “[n]ew regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by a Federal banking agency which impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form” absent a good cause determination by the agency. 4 The final rule imposes no additional reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions and therefore is not subject to the effective date requirement in RCDRIA.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends 12 CFR parts 303 and 348 as follows:

On November 2, 2018, FCA issued a final rule adopting amendments to regulations governing the eligibility of non-program investments held by Farmer Mac to remove references to, and requirements relating to, credit ratings. The final rule also revised investment concentration limits and removed both the fixed asset class limits and the related table of eligible asset classes. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252(c)(1), the effective date of the rule is no earlier than 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is February 8, 2019.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2018 (83 FR 34800). The NPRM was prompted by a report that a certain modification to the auto relight system is incompatible with a certain beta lockout system modification and could result in de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the auto ignition system and applicable rectification. We are issuing this AD to address unintentional de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine when the beta lockout system is activated, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of the No. 2 engine.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-21R1, dated June 28, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0635.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-74-07, dated April 13, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine correct operation of the auto ignition system for airplanes on which a beta lockout system was installed, and rectification to re-activate a previously disabled auto ignition system that will address inadvertent de-activation of the auto ignition feature. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 185 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued AD 2018-16-07, Amendment 39-19347 (83 FR 36724, July 31, 2018) (“AD 2018-16-07”), for certain GE GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -1B67, -1B70, -1B54/P1, -1B58/P1, -1B64/P1, -1B67/P1, -1B70/P1, -1B54/P2, -1B58/P2, -1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P1, -1B70/72/P1, -1B70/75/P1, -1B74/75/P1, -1B75/P1, -1B70C/P2, -1B70/72/P2, -1B70/75/P2, -1B74/75/P2, -1B75/P2, -1B76/P2, -1B76A/P2, -1B78/P2, -2B67, -2B67B, and -2B67/P turbofan engines. AD 2018-16-07 required removal of affected HPT cases from service and their replacement with a part eligible for installation. AD 2018-16-07 was prompted by the discovery of a quality escape at a manufacturing facility involving unapproved reworks on HPT cases. We issued AD 2018-16-07 to address failure of the HPT case, which could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2018-16-07, we have received new data from the manufacturer and have determined that certain HPT cases may have a reduced fatigue life than previously determined. Because of this reduced fatigue life, the HPT cases must be removed and replaced at reduced compliance times. Failure to remove and replace the HPT cases within the reduced compliance times could result in failure of the HPT case resulting in the unsafe condition identified above.

We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) GEnx-2B S/B 72-0360, Revision 04, dated December 4, 2018, and GE SB GEnx-1B S/B 72-0424, Revision 04, dated December 3, 2018. This service information describes procedures for removing the affected HPT cases from the engine. GE SB GEnx-1B S/B 72-0424 is effective for GEnx-1B engines with the serial numbers of HPT cases listed therein. GE SB GEnx-2B S/B 72-0360 is effective for GEnx-2B engines with the serial numbers of HPT cases listed therein. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We reviewed Inspection 001, Subtask 72-52-01-230-001, of GEnx-1B Cleaning, Inspection, and Repair Manual GEK112862, Rev 27, dated April 30, 2018, and GEnx-2B Cleaning, Inspection, and Repair Manual GEK114120, Rev 20, dated April 30, 2018. These manuals provide guidance for conducting Class A fluorescent penetrant inspections.

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

This AD requires removal of the affected HPT cases from service and their replacement with a part eligible for installation.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of a quality escape at a manufacturing facility involving unapproved rework on HPT cases, which could result in failure of the HPT case and subsequent engine fire and damage to the airplane. Additionally, the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-0042 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-25-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 7 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 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.

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued AD 2018-22-05, Amendment 39-19478 (83 FR 55816, November 8, 2018) (“AD 2018-22-05”), for EA GP7270, GP7272, and GP7277 turbofan engines with a certain HPT case installed. AD 2018-22-05 required removal of affected HPT cases from service and their replacement with a part eligible for installation. AD 2018-22-05 was prompted by the discovery of a quality escape at a manufacturing facility involving unapproved welds on HPT cases. We issued AD 2018-22-05 to address failure of the HPT case, which could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2018-22-05, another undocumented weld has been found on a part that was previously considered to have enough manufacturing data to perform an updated life analysis. The new findings created more uncertainty about the manufacturing data, creating the need for an updated risk analysis with the new information. As a result, we have determined that the remaining cycles allowed on the affected HPT cases must be reduced and additional affected parts were identified that must be removed and replaced.

We reviewed Engine Alliance Alert Service Bulletin EAGP7-A72-401, Revision No. 1, dated December 13, 2018, which describes procedures for removing and replacing the affected HPT case within the identified cycles.

We also reviewed Engine Alliance Service Bulletin EAGP7-72-399, dated June 4, 2018, which describes procedures for removing and replacing the affected HPT case within the specified part cycles since new or part cycles since overhaul.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD requires removal of the affected HPT cases from service and their replacement with a part eligible for installation.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the HPT case could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane, and the compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for public comment and publication of the final rule. Additionally, no domestic operators currently use this product. We find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-0050 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-35-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate 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.

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all International Aero Engines (IAE) PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM turbofan engines with certain LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2018 (83 FR 45359). The NPRM was prompted by a report that multiple LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks were delivered before the ingot lot was rejected due to material inclusion. The suspect LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks may include defects that may not have been discovered during inspections. The NPRM proposed to require removing the LPT 1st- or 3rd-stage disk from service and replacing with a part eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

IAE requested that we change the compliance time for removing from service the LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks from “at the next shop visit” to “within a service period.” IAE states its safety risk analysis shows that the prescribed corrective action exceeds all required safety risk criteria. Therefore, requiring removal and replacement of the LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks with serial numbers (S/Ns) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD “at the next shop visit” is overly restrictive.

We partially agree. We agree that requiring removal and replacement of the LPT 1st- and 3rd-stage disks with S/Ns listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD “at the next shop visit” may be overly restrictive based on the risk presented in the safety risk assessment. We disagree with using the words “within a service period” because this might allow reinstallation of parts that do not conform to the approved type design. Therefore, we changed the references in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD from “at the next shop visit” to “at the next piece-part exposure.” We find that this change still meets the safety objectives of this AD. We also removed the Definitions paragraph from this AD since it is no longer necessary.

An individual commenter requested that we define the costs associated with the removal of the LPT 1st- or 3rd grade disks from each unit.

We disagree. We did not define a removal cost estimate because removal of the LPT 1st- or 3rd grade disks occurs when the unit is “at the next piece-part exposure” level. Therefore, no additional cost is incurred by removal of the LPT disks.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate 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.

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 51897, October 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2015-2892 to amend Class E airspace at Newton Field, Jackman, ME to support IFR operations at this airport.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within an 12.4-mile (increased from a 6-mile) radius of Newton Field, Jackman, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport. This action also makes an editorial correction to remove the duplicate airspace published in the Order under the designation Newton Field, ME. In addition, the geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. 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 rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs 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, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs 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, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI and GOA under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP), respectively. NMFS manages vessels subject to specific limitations on the catch of specific species or species groups (sideboard limits) under the AFA Program under the BSAI and GOA FMPs, and NMFS manages vessels and License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses subject to sideboard limits under the CR Program under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the BSAI and GOA FMPs are located at 50 CFR part 679. Regulations implementing the Crab FMP are located at 50 CFR part 680. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

NMFS published the proposed rule for this action on August 16, 2018 (83 FR 40733), with comments invited through September 17, 2018. NMFS received one comment during the applicable comment period. A summary of this comment and the response by NMFS are provided under the heading “Comments and Responses” below.

A detailed review of the regulations to modify the management of AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits, as well as the removal of the requirement for AFA inshore cooperatives to submit a weekly catch report, and the rationale for these revisions are provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 40733, August 16, 2018) and are briefly summarized in this final rule.

This final rule includes two actions. The first action revises §§ 679.64 and 680.22 for sideboard limits that apply to two categories of vessels that operate in the BSAI or GOA: (1) AFA catcher/processors (C/Ps) listed in § 679.4(l)(2)(i) (described as AFA C/Ps in this rule), and AFA catcher vessels (CVs) permitted to harvest Bering Sea pollock as established in § 679.4(l)(3); and (2) vessels and LLP licenses subject to sideboard restrictions in the GOA based on criteria as established in § 680.22(a) under the CR Program. This first action prohibits directed fishing for groundfish species or species groups that are subject to sideboard limits that are not large enough to support directed fishing as that term is defined at § 679.2. In addition, under the first action, this rule removes the regulation at § 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(B) listing a sideboard limit for AFA C/Ps in one management area (Central Aleutian Islands (Central AI)) for one species (Atka mackerel) that is currently subject to a more restrictive harvest limit under existing regulations at § 679.91(c)(2)(ii) and Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679.

The first action under this rule is necessary to streamline and simplify NMFS's management of applicable groundfish sideboard limits. NMFS calculates numerous AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits as part of the annual BSAI and GOA harvest specifications process and publishes these limits in the Federal Register . Concurrently, NMFS prohibits directed fishing for the majority of the groundfish subject to these sideboard limits because most sideboard limits are too small each year to support directed fishing. The most recent example of the annual BSAI and GOA harvest specifications with the AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits can be found at 83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018, for the BSAI, and at 83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018, for the GOA. Rather than continue this annual process of calculating all sideboard limits and then closing most of the groundfish species with sideboard limits to directed fishing, the first action of this rule revises regulations to prohibit directed fishing by non-exempt AFA Program and CR Program vessels for those groundfish species and species groups subject to sideboard limits that have not been opened to directed fishing and that are not expected to be opened to directed fishing in the foreseeable future. Also, NMFS will now cease calculating and publishing each year the relevant sideboard limits subject to this final rule and their corresponding directed fishing prohibitions in the BSAI and GOA groundfish harvest specifications.

The second action of this final rule removes the requirement for the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives (described later in this preamble) to submit a weekly catch report described in §§ 679.5(o) and 679.62(b)(3). NMFS is removing this requirement because the information in the weekly catch report is collected by NMFS through other recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and this weekly catch report is no longer necessary for NMFS to manage the AFA inshore pollock allocations.

The following discussion summarizes groundfish sideboard limits, the AFA Program and AFA Program sideboard limits, the CR Program and CR Program sideboard limits, the annual harvest specifications process, and the management of AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits through that annual harvest specifications process. The discussion also summarizes AFA inshore cooperative reporting requirements.

The Council and NMFS generally establish sideboard limits when implementing Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP). The term “limited access privilege” is defined in section 3(26) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1802). Sideboard limits are intended to prevent participants who benefit from receiving exclusive harvesting privileges in a LAPP from shifting effort into other fisheries. Sideboard limits establish limits on the annual amount of a specific groundfish total allowable catch (TAC) limit or prohibited species catch (PSC) limit for participants in a given LAPP.

The Bering Sea pollock fishery is managed under the authority of the AFA (16 U.S.C. 1851 note) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The AFA Program is a LAPP that established Bering Sea pollock directed fishing allocations to inshore and offshore components (commonly called the inshore and offshore sectors). The offshore sector includes both C/Ps and motherships, which are processing vessels that take deliveries of fish from CVs. The AFA also determined eligible vessels and processors in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, allowed the formation of cooperatives of CVs in association with specific processors in the inshore sector, established sideboard limits, and imposed special catch weighing and monitoring requirements on AFA C/Ps. The AFA was implemented by Amendment 61 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 61 to the GOA FMP, Amendment 13 to the Crab FMP, and Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (67 FR 79692; December 30, 2002). The final rule implementing the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002) and Section 2.7.1 of the Analysis describe the AFA Program in detail and the basis for the sideboard limits established under the AFA Program.

The final rule implementing the AFA established several different types of sideboard limits for vessels that are authorized to harvest pollock in the Bering Sea. These sideboard limits were established to protect the interests of fishermen and processors who do not directly benefit from the AFA from those fishermen and processors who received exclusive harvesting and processing privileges under the AFA. Essentially, the AFA Program sideboard limits protect non-AFA fishermen and processors by restricting the ability of AFA pollock fishermen and processors to target non-pollock groundfish species and species groups. Some of these sideboard limits are implemented through directed fishing closures in regulations, such as setting the AFA C/P Atka mackerel harvest limit to zero in the Bering Sea subarea and Eastern AI (§ 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Other sideboard limits are implemented through the annual harvest specifications process, which is described later in this preamble.

The CR Program is a LAPP that allocates nine BSAI crab species among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Participants in the CR Program receive exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for a portion of the annual TAC established for each crab fishery under the CR Program. The final rule implementing the CR Program describes the different elements of the program, including groundfish sideboard limits in the GOA for vessels and LLP licenses that received allocations of exclusive harvesting privileges under the CR Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). These sideboard limits were developed to protect participants in other non-CR Program groundfish fisheries from increased participation by CR Program vessels in the GOA groundfish fisheries, as discussed in Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis. Essentially, the CR Program sideboard limits protect non-CR Program participants by restricting the ability of CR Program participants to target non-crab fisheries ( i.e., GOA groundfish fisheries). CR Program sideboard limits are established by management areas and for a variety of species and species groups and gear types, including pot, hook-and-line, jig, and trawl gear. CR Program sideboard limits are applicable only in the GOA. Section 680.22 establishes groundfish sideboard limits for vessels and LLP licenses with a history of participation in the Bering Sea snow crab ( Chionoecetes opilio ) fishery.

NMFS establishes the overfishing level, acceptable biological catch, and TAC for each species or species group through the annual groundfish harvest specifications process. If a species is closed for directed fishing and the TAC has not been reached, NMFS allows vessels to retain incidental catch of species taken in other directed fisheries that are open, up to the maximum retainable amount (MRA) allowed in § 679.20(e). If a species is closed to directed fishing and the TAC for that species is reached, NMFS prohibits retention of that species, and all catch of that species must be discarded. An MRA is calculated as a percentage of the retained amount of a species that is closed to directed fishing, relative to the retained amount of basis species or species groups open to directed fishing. Amounts that are caught greater than a particular MRA percentage must be discarded.

In the annual harvest specifications, NMFS calculates sideboard limits for the AFA Program and the CR Program fisheries by multiplying a fixed ratio against the annual TAC or portion of the TAC for each BSAI and GOA groundfish species or species group. These ratios are derived based on the specific AFA and CR Program regulations described earlier in this preamble. The annual sideboard limit for most BSAI and GOA groundfish species is an amount that is much smaller than the overall TAC for each species. For the most recent example of the annual groundfish harvest specifications and associated AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits, see the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for the BSAI and GOA (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018, and 83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018, respectively).

Consistent with §§ 679.64 and 680.22, NMFS manages the AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits by establishing directed fishing closures for a species or species group subject to a sideboard limit. These closures could happen during the fishing year if a particular sideboard limit is reached. Alternatively, NMFS may issue a directed fishing closure in the harvest specifications prior to the fishing year, if the sideboard limit is not sufficient to support directed fishing for a species or species group. NMFS has prohibited directed fishing for the majority of AFA CV and C/P sideboard limits since the initial implementation of the AFA Program in 2000 (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000). NMFS also has prohibited directed fishing for the majority of CR Program sideboard limits in the GOA since CR Program was implemented in 2006. Directed fishing prohibitions have been issued because the sideboard limits for most species were insufficient to provide for both directed fishing of a species and incidental catch of that same species in other target fisheries.

NMFS also is removing the requirement for the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives to submit a weekly catch report described in §§ 679.5(o) and 679.62(b)(3) because this report is no longer necessary to manage the AFA inshore pollock allocations. NMFS obtains the necessary information required on the AFA inshore cooperative weekly report through other reporting requirements at § 679.5(e). Removing this reporting requirement will reduce costs for the public to prepare and submit the weekly reports and for NMFS to review and process those weekly reports.

Under action 1, NMFS will no longer publish AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits for specific species or species groups in the Federal Register as part of the annual groundfish harvest specifications, but instead will specify in regulation those species with sideboard limits that are subject to a directed fishing closure. Specification in regulation of these directed fishing closures will streamline and simplify NMFS's management of the applicable groundfish sideboard limits. NMFS will no longer need to calculate the applicable sideboards limits, prepare the necessary tables, and publish those sideboard limits and their corresponding directed fishing prohibitions each year in the BSAI and GOA groundfish harvest specifications. This will reduce staff time and annual costs to prepare and publish the BSAI and GOA groundfish harvest specifications.

This final rule will not modify the ability of sideboard-limited vessels to retain incidental catch of species closed to directed fishing while targeting other species. Vessels are allowed to retain incidental catch of species up to the MRA if the TAC of that species has not been reached. Once TAC is reached, NMFS prohibits retention of that species. The regulations governing incidental catch and MRAs apply when a species is closed to directed fishing, whether closed to directed fishing through the annual BSAI and GOA harvest specifications or through a specific regulation. Accordingly, under this final rule, sideboard-limited vessels will remain subject to the same regulations governing the incidental catch of species or species groups with sideboard limits that are closed to directed fishing, and this rule will not change NMFS's inseason management of sideboard limits. Moreover, the approach that continues directed fishing closures for sideboard limits for AFA and CR Program vessels will still protect non-AFA and non-CR Program participants in other fisheries, in accordance with the original intent of creating sideboard limits (see Section 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 of the Analysis).

In both the BSAI and GOA, many of the sideboard limits are not large enough to support directed fishing by AFA CVs and C/Ps and crab vessels. It is highly unlikely that the TACs of any of the sideboard species will increase significantly enough in the foreseeable future to result in a large enough sideboard limit to allow directed fishing of that sideboard limit by AFA vessels and crab vessels. Therefore, NMFS has determined it will be more efficient to close those sideboard limits to directed fishing in regulation, rather than continuing to specify those sideboard limits and close them to directed fishing every year through the annual harvest specifications.

Accordingly, under action 1, this final rule implements the Council's recommendation (Option 1 to Alternative 2, the preferred alternative) to:

This final rule revises § 679.20(d) by adding a new paragraph to prohibit directed fishing for the sideboard-limited groundfish species and species groups listed in Tables 54, 55, and 56 to 50 CFR part 679. Existing regulations associated with establishing directed fishing sideboard limits are retained, as they are needed for those species or species groups that will continue to have sideboard limits established through the annual harvest specifications. In addition, § 679.64(a)(3) is revised to add a paragraph describing that Table 54 to 50 CFR part 679 contains the BSAI species or species groups with sideboard limits prohibited for directed fishing by AFA C/Ps. Similarly, § 679.64(b)(5) is revised to add a paragraph that describes Tables 55 and 56 to 50 CFR part 679. These two tables list the sideboard-limited species or species groups prohibited for directed fishing by AFA CVs in the BSAI and GOA, respectively.

Regarding the Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit for AFA C/Ps, this final rule removes § 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(B). That regulation specifies the AFA C/Ps Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit of 11.5 percent of the annual Central AI TAC, which is based on the sideboard limit set forth in section 211(b)(2)(C)(i) of the AFA. However, since the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program in 2008, the percentage of the initial TAC for the sector in which AFA C/Ps are authorized to participate (the BSAI trawl limited access sector) is only 10 percent. Therefore, the maximum amount of the Central AI Atka mackerel TAC available to AFA C/Ps under regulations implementing Amendment 80 (10 percent) is less than the sideboard limit established for AFA C/Ps when the AFA Program was implemented in 2000 (11.5 percent). Since the BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation is less than the sideboard limit, the sideboard limit no longer constrains AFA C/Ps. This revision to remove the regulation that specifies the sideboard limit for Central AI Atka mackerel for AFA C/Ps is consistent with Section 211 of the AFA. Section 211(a) of the AFA allows the Council to recommend, and NMFS to approve, conservation and management measures necessary to protect other fisheries from the adverse impacts caused by the AFA. The current allocation of Atka mackerel available to AFA C/Ps (10 percent of the TAC) is effectively a conservation and management measure that protects participants in other non-AFA fisheries by limiting the amount of Atka mackerel that AFA C/Ps can potentially harvest to less than 11.5 percent of the TAC available to AFA C/Ps under the existing sideboard limit established under section 211(b)(2)(C)(i) of the AFA. Under this final rule, NMFS will no longer specify the AFA C/P sideboard limit for Central AI Atka mackerel; however, that fishery will remain open to directed fishing, and AFA C/Ps as part of the BSAI trawl limited access sector will remain constrained under existing regulations to harvesting up to 10 percent of the allocation to the BSAI trawl limited access sector (§ 679.91(c)(2)(ii) and Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679).

For the CR Program sideboard limits, this final rule revises § 680.22(e) to describe the prohibition for directed fishing for most sideboard-limited GOA groundfish species by non-AFA crab vessels in the GOA. This revision would note that the directed fishing prohibition does not apply to Pacific cod apportioned to CVs using pot gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas.

In addition to the Council's recommendation for revising the management of AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits, NMFS is removing the requirements for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report described in §§ 679.5(o) and 679.62(b)(3). This report is no longer necessary to manage the AFA inshore pollock allocations. NMFS has direct and immediate access to observer and landings data to track catch by the cooperatives and does not need the information submitted by the cooperatives to monitor the Bering Sea pollock fisheries. Eliminating this weekly reporting requirement will reduce the burden on the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives to prepare and submit these reports to NMFS weekly, will reduce costs to the members of the AFA inshore cooperatives to pay for the preparation and submission of these weekly reports, and will reduce the time and costs that NMFS incurs in processing and reviewing the weekly reports.

Comment 1: NMFS received one comment addressing issues outside of the scope of this action. The commenter does not support modifying any regulations, and advocated that wildlife and oceans should be left alone.

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this regulatory action. This final rule primarily is intended to increase the administrative efficiency associated with managing AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA. This final rule does not change the general management measures that govern the federal groundfish fisheries of these two management areas and does not change the specific measures that govern the management of the sideboard limits under the AFA Program and CR Program.

This final rule will change the regulatory text by which NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for CR Program groundfish sideboard limits. NMFS originally proposed adding Table 11 to 50 CFR part 680 to list the GOA groundfish species and species groups for which directed fishing for sideboard limits by non-AFA crab vessels is prohibited, which would have included almost all of the GOA groundfish sideboard limits for non-AFA crab vessels. In this final rule, NMFS will instead specify the directed fishing closures in § 680.22(e)(1)(iii), which will state that directed fishing for groundfish species by non-AFA crab vessels subject to sideboard restrictions is prohibited for all GOA groundfish species, with the exception of Pacific cod apportioned to CVs using pot gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas. NMFS believes that this is a simpler approach than initially proposed, as it eliminates the need to add a complex table to regulations. The CR Program sideboard limits for Pacific cod apportioned to CVs using pot gear in the Western and Central GOA are historically the only sideboard limits open to directed fishing. These apportionments have typically been large enough to support directed fishing for Pacific cod by CVs using pot gear. However, if future annual apportionments are not large enough to support directed fishing, NMFS still has the authority under § 679.20(d) to prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod by CVs using pot gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas.

In addition, this final rule revises Tables 54, 55, and 56 to 50 CFR part 679 to clarify that the directed fishing prohibition for “rougheye rockfish” actually applies to two distinct rockfish species: rougheye rockfish ( Sebastes aleutianus ) and blackspotted rockfish ( Sebastes melanostictus ). The complete species group (blackspotted rockfish and rougheye rockfish) was inadvertently omitted from these three tables during the regulatory drafting process. The BSAI and the GOA harvest specifications specify annual TACs for these two species as a combined species group. Sideboard limits also are established for the species group, not just rougheye rockfish, and accordingly this final rule establishes regulations that prohibit directed fishing in the GOA and BSAI for these two rockfish species as a combined species group.

Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each agency information collection requirement. Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule removes a regulation (§ 679.5(o)) with a data element in an approved collection-of-information, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to remove this reference to this regulation.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is necessary to modify the management of AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. This action does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preambles. Copies of the proposed rule and this final rule are available from the NMFS website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this final analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The Council recommended the regulatory revisions in this final rule based on those measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the economic analysis related to the impact of this final rule on small entities are discussed below in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.

This FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, if any, and NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support this action.

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for and objectives of the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made to the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in this final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of the rule are contained in the preamble to this final rule and the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 40733, August 16, 2018), and are not repeated here.

NMFS published the proposed rule on August 16, 2018 (83 FR 40733). An IRFA was prepared and included in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on September 17, 2018. NMFS received one letter of public comment on the proposed rule. NMFS received no comments specifically on the IRFA or on the economic impacts of the rule more generally. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

This final rule directly regulates those vessel operators that are restricted by AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA, and AFA inshore cooperatives that are required to submit an AFA inshore cooperative weekly report. All persons required to submit an AFA inshore cooperative weekly report are also subject to sideboard limits under the AFA Program, with the exception of CVs exempt from AFA Program sideboard limits. Therefore, the number of directly regulated entities under this final rule is equal to the number of vessel operators restricted by AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA.

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

There are 93 active AFA CVs that are restricted by sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA, 17 active C/Ps that are restricted by sideboard limits in the BSAI, and 95 active CR Program CVs that are restricted by sideboard limits in the GOA. These vessels are members of an AFA cooperative for Bering Sea pollock or a Bering Sea Crab Cooperative and are therefore considered to be large entities via their cooperative affiliation. Other than these vessels, there are 18 vessels that are restricted by sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA and that are not members of an AFA or crab cooperative. These 18 vessels may be considered small entities under the RFA because they likely have combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11.0 million.

This final rule removes a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for the submittal of AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch reports. Such reports are no longer necessary to assist NMFS with managing the AFA inshore pollock fisheries, as the information in such reports has been superseded by more contemporary, electronic data reporting. The proposal to remove these requirements is anticipated to reduce the cost to the public by approximately $8,475 per year, and is anticipated to reduce costs to NMFS by approximately $5,400 per year.

No significant alternatives were identified that will accomplish the stated objectives for streamlining the management of AFA and CR Program sideboard limits by prohibiting directed fishing in regulation for certain species sideboard limits, that are consistent with applicable statutes, and that will reduce costs to potentially affected small entities more than this final rule. The Council and NMFS considered two alternatives for action 1 of this rule. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. This alternative would have continued the annual establishment in the harvest specifications of the sideboard limits for all the species and species groups subject to sideboard limits under the AFA Program and CR Program and would have retained the regulation listing the sideboard limit for Central AI Atka mackerel for AFA C/Ps. These sideboard species have insufficient sideboard limits to support directed fishing, are fully allocated to other catch share programs, or for a variety of other reasons are closed to directed fishing. Under Alternative 1, NMFS would continue to prohibit directed fishing for these sideboard limited fisheries through the annual harvest specifications, except for the Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit for AFA C/Ps, which remains open for directed fishing.

Alternative 2, along with Option 1 (the preferred alternative), provides the greatest economic benefits. The primary economic benefit of this final rule is to reduce NMFS's administrative burden of managing most AFA Program and CR Program sideboards through the annual harvest specifications process. Implementation of Alternative 2 through this final rule will streamline the preparation of the BSAI and GOA annual harvest specifications, simplify NMFS's annual programming changes to the groundfish catch accounting system, and reduce the future costs of publishing the annual harvest specifications in the Federal Register each year. The economic effects on fishery participants that are affected by this action primarily are neutral. The removal of the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report requirement should, however, provide a modest economic benefit for AFA inshore cooperatives.

This final rule addresses a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0401 (AFA Reports). This rule does not add any new information collection requirements, but removes the regulatory requirement for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report. The public reporting burden for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch reports is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments on this or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS Alaska Region (see ADDRESSES ) and to OIRA by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-5806.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR parts 679 and 680 as follows:

I. Introduction

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Public Law 114-94, amended 23 U.S.C. 154 (Section 154) and 23 U.S.C. 164 (Section 164), which address the serious national problems of impaired driving by encouraging States to meet minimum standards for their open container laws and repeat intoxicated driver laws. Under Section 154, to avoid the transfer of funds, a State must enact and enforce an open container law “that prohibits the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container, or the consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the passenger area of any motor vehicle (including possession or consumption by the driver of the vehicle) located on a public highway, or the right-of-way of a public highway, in the State.” 23 U.S.C. 154(b)(1). Under Section 164, to avoid the transfer of funds, a State must enact and enforce a repeat intoxicated driver law that establishes, at minimum, certain specified penalties for second and subsequent convictions of driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence. 23 U.S.C. 164(a)(5). All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are considered to be “States” for the purposes of these programs.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (“the agencies”) jointly issued an interim final rule (IFR), with immediate effectiveness, on September 30, 2016, (81 FR 67158) to ensure that States received instructions that were important to the compliance determinations made on October 1, 2016, when the changes in the FAST Act became effective. The IFR amended the Federal implementing regulations for Section 154 at 23 CFR part 1270 and Section 164 at 23 CFR part 1275 to reflect the changed requirements from the Federal legislation. At the same time, the agencies updated the regulations to improve clarity, codify longstanding interpretation of the statutes and implementing regulations, and streamline procedures for States. The agencies sought public comment to inform the promulgation of a final rule. This action addresses the comments received and makes minor changes to the Federal implementing regulations.

The IFR implemented the new compliance provisions of the FAST Act and also updated the rules to incorporate prior statutory changes from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141 (enacted July 6, 2012), and the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008, Public Law 110-244 (enacted June 6, 2008). The preamble to the IFR also provided additional information regarding the programs, and the agencies encourage States to review it in conjunction with this preamble and the final implementing regulations.

Some of the revisions in the IFR to the Section 154 and Section 164 implementing regulations in 23 CFR parts 1270 and 1275 were made simply to allow States to better understand the programs and attain and maintain compliance. These revisions did not substantively amend the compliance requirements of the programs. Such revisions included amending or adding definitions, clarifying and broadening permitted exceptions in the Section 154 program, and making technical corrections as necessary.

Because the FAST Act significantly amended the compliance criteria for the Section 164 program, the IFR also made conforming revisions to the Section 164 implementing regulations in 23 CFR part 1275. The IFR implemented the revised one-year license sanction requirement, allowing States three options for repeat offenders: suspension of all driving privileges, restriction to operating only motor vehicles with an ignition interlock device installed (allowing for limited employment and medical exceptions), or participation in and compliance with a 24-7 sobriety program. It eliminated the vehicle sanction requirement, which was repealed by the FAST Act, but made no changes to the assessment and treatment requirement, which has not changed since its inception. Finally, it made two changes to the minimum sentence requirement: clarifying the hour-equivalents for days served in imprisonment or community service and implementing the annual “general practice” certification option for incarceration in lieu of having a compliant mandatory minimum sentence. With regard to the latter, a State may certify for a second offender that its “general practice is that such an individual will be incarcerated” and for a third or subsequent offender that its “general practice is that such an individual will receive 10 days of incarceration.” 23 U.S.C. 164(a)(5)(C)(i)-(ii). To meet the statutory standard of “general practice,” the IFR requires a State to certify that 75 percent of repeat offenders are subject to mandatory incarceration for the minimum sentences specified for the calendar year immediately prior to the certification.

Finally, the IFR updated the non-compliance penalties and procedures in the regulations to reflect amendments made to the Federal statutes by the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act and MAP-21. The IFR also reorganized the regulations to improve clarity, streamlined some of the procedures that apply to States, reduced paperwork burdens, and better aligned the regulations with the longstanding administrative practices under the programs.

The agencies received only two comments on the IFR: one addressing Section 154 (anonymous commenter; NHTSA-2016-0099-0002) and one addressing Section 164 (Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming [“State DOTs”]; NHTSA-2016-0099-0003).

The anonymous commenter requested that the final rule “provide more information about the exceptions to locations of an open container within the vehicle.” Specifically, the commenter wanted more information about “vehicles without the typical trunk that have no cover for the hatch in the back . . . because it could possibly be accessible to a determined passenger and potentially lead me to severe penalties.” Open container laws differ significantly from State to State. Therefore, the commenter should consult the law of the particular State to determine enforcement details and penalties. However, for purpose of compliance with Section 154, a State may allow possession of an open alcoholic beverage container “in a locked container (such as a locked glove compartment), or, in a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk, either behind the last upright seat or in an area not normally occupied by the driver or a passenger.” 23 CFR 1270.4(d)(1). A State would not be determined to be out of compliance with Section 154 if it allows an open container to be possessed in the area behind the last upright seat in a hatchback-style vehicle, regardless of whether that area is covered. The agencies are making no changes in this final rule in response to this comment.

The State DOTs requested greater flexibility in the “general practice” certification, allowing for approaches other than 75 percent incarceration during the calendar year prior to the date of certification. The commenters cite to the following statement from Senator John Thune during the Senate floor debate: “This provision is intended to allow States to certify the general practice on minimum penalties which can meet the definition under the repeat offender law, and we expect that NHTSA should reasonably defer to a State's analysis underpinning such a certification.” 161 Congressional Record S8359 (December 3, 2015, daily ed.). The State DOTs requested that States be permitted to certify with percentages as low as 51 percent, particularly “if there is evidence of a trend of an increasing percentage or other relevant information provided by the State.”

The agencies do not believe it is appropriate to accept certifications on the basis of 51 percent of repeat offenders receiving the statutorily required penalties, as this essentially renders the practice “as likely as not” and does not establish a “general practice,” as specified in the statute. The pre-enactment statement in floor debate does not serve to change the meaning of that statutory term. The agencies continue to believe that 75 percent provides a reasonable and appropriate balance between flexibility and mandatory minimum sentences for 100 percent of offenders (as required for States complying on the basis of their law, rather than a “general practice” certification). We note that NHTSA did, in fact, defer to States' analyses of their own incarceration data underpinning their “general practice” certifications for fiscal year 2017, 2018, and 2019 submissions when they certified to meeting the 75 percent requirement. The agencies are making no changes in this final rule in response to this comment.

The agencies are making two revisions in this final rule. The first relates to the opportunity for States determined to be non-compliant with either Section 154 or Section 164 to submit documentation showing why they are compliant. In the IFR, the agencies gave States 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice of apportionments under 23 U.S.C. 104(e) by FHWA, which normally occurs on October 1, to submit this documentation. 23 CFR 1270.8(b) and 1275.8(b). However, the agencies tied the deadlines for submission of “shift” and “split” letters to 30 and 60 days, respectively, from the date “the funds are reserved.”  1 23 CFR 1270.6(b), 1270.7(a), 1275.6(b), and 1275.7(a). Although the date of issuance of the notice of apportionments and the reservation of funds is normally the same, in some years FHWA has rescinded and subsequently reissued the notice of apportionments. The agencies do not intend to grant an extension of time for submission of additional documentation or “shift” and “split” letters in the event of such a reissuance, as the State will already have been on notice of its non-compliance for the fiscal year because of the original reservation of funds. To eliminate confusion and align these deadlines, the agencies are amending the Section 154 and Section 164 regulations to require submission of any additional documentation within “30 days from the date the funds are reserved.”

The second relates to the “special exception” to interlock use under Section 164 for individuals certified by a medical doctor as being unable to provide a deep lung breath sample for analysis by an ignition interlock device. The agencies are changing “certified by a medical doctor” to “certified in writing by a physician” to align with NHTSA's implementing regulations for 23 U.S.C. 405(d)(6)(F)(ii). See 23 CFR 1300.23(g)(2)(ii). The agencies believe a certification, by definition, must be in writing. Because the statutory language underlying the special exception in Section 164 is identical to the exception permitted in NHTSA's Grants to States with Alcohol-Ignition Interlock Laws program, and the agency's regulatory language in that program also was subject to public notice and comment, it is appropriate to bring the language of the Section 164 implementing regulations into alignment with that program.

The agencies issued the IFR with an immediate effective date to ensure that States received instructions that were important to compliance determinations made on October 1, 2016, as the changes in the FAST Act became effective on that date. The effective date for this final rule is March 11, 2019. This final rule has no effect on determinations made on October 1, 2018, for Federal fiscal year 2019.

NHTSA and FHWA are committed to ensuring transparency in the administration of these programs and maintaining open and active communication with States. For example, the agencies will continue to notify States of potential non-compliance issues for the forthcoming fiscal year in FHWA's advance notification of apportionment, normally issued 90 days prior to the official apportionment notice, if such information is available to the agencies at that time. The agencies will also notify States at other points throughout the year if they become aware of potential non-compliance issues. However, to provide this information in a timely fashion for States to react as appropriate, the agencies continue to rely upon States for prompt notification of changes in their laws. See, e.g., 23 CFR 1270.9(b) and 1275.9(b). Although the regulations require a State to “promptly notify” the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator in writing only of any actual change or change in enforcement of the law, States are invited also to submit prospective changes ( e.g., pending legislation) to NHTSA throughout the year for a preliminary review of their impact on compliance.

In addition, the agencies recognize that States would benefit from receiving more information from the agencies regarding compliance requirements, procedures, and relevant points of contact. NHTSA and FHWA are exploring ways to improve the availability of information on the programs for States to better allow them to obtain and maintain compliance, and we are committed to rolling these improvements out in the coming months. The agencies invite States to provide suggestions on how we can improve transparency by contacting the individuals listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.

NHTSA and FHWA have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This rule will only affect the compliance status of a very small handful of States and will therefore affect far less than $100 million annually. Whether a State chooses to enact a compliant law or make a certification is dependent on many variables, and cannot be linked with specificity to the issuance of this rule. States choose whether to enact and enforce compliant laws, thereby complying with the programs. If a State chooses not to enact and enforce a conforming law, its funds are conditioned, but not withheld. Accordingly, the total amount of funding provided to each State does not change. The costs to States associated with this rule are minimal ( e.g., passing and enforcing alcohol impaired driving laws) and are expected to be offset by resulting highway safety benefits. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that an action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule updates the Section 154 and Section 164 implementing regulations based on recent Federal legislation. The requirements of these programs only affect State governments, which are not considered to be small entities as that term is defined by the RFA. Therefore, we certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and find that the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.

Executive Order 13132 on “federalism” requires the agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, an agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the agency consults with State and local governments in the process of developing the proposed regulation. An agency also may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that preempts a State law without consulting with State and local officials.

The agencies have analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 13132, and have determined that this final rule would not have sufficient federalism implications as defined in the order to warrant formal consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. However, the agencies continue to engage with State representatives regarding general implementation of the FAST Act, including these programs, and expects to continue these informal dialogues.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)), “Civil Justice Reform,” the agencies have considered whether this rule would have any retroactive effect. We conclude that it would not have any retroactive or preemptive effect, and judicial review of it may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review. This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This rulemaking would not establish any new information collection requirements.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule would not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because the resulting annual State expenditures to comply with the programs would not exceed the minimum threshold.

NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The agency has determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. FHWA has analyzed this action for the purposes of NEPA and has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

The agencies have analyzed this IFR under Executive Order 13175, and have determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in or about April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 154 and 164, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration amend 23 CFR chapter II as follows:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR subpart removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing information which either restates statue (Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5121-5207) and the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535)) or is duplicative of publicly available DoD and Air Force internal policy. Internal guidance for the DoD policy execution and oversight of DSCA will continue to be published in DoD Directive 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities” (available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/302518p.pdf?ver=2018-03-19-093120-683 ). Department of the Air Force internal guidance will continue to be published in Air Force Instruction 10-801 (available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3/publication/afi10-801/afi10-801.pdf ).

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

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 809a is amended as follows:

Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking SR State Route § Section I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

MDOT has requested to change the operating requirements for the SR 605 bascule bridge across the Industrial Seaway Canal, mile 11.3, at Hansboro, Harrison County, Mississippi. This bridge currently opens on signal according to 33 CFR 117.5. MDOT provided the Coast Guard with a vehicle traffic study that concluded that vehicle traffic becomes very congested on SR 605 during morning and afternoon rush hours and that bridge openings for vessels add to the congestion. MDOT informed the Coast Guard that this traffic congestion backs up from the bridge to the I-10 highway which creates unsafe queues on I-10 and SR 605. This MDOT study and analysis is provided in the docket to this temporary rule.

The 120 day temporary deviation to the regulation will allow MDOT to collect additional vehicle traffic data to measure the impact of bridge closures on traffic congestion. It will also allow the Coast Guard to collect data on the impact of the temporary regulation change on vessels.

This bridge has a vertical clearance of 37.1 feet above mean high water in the closed to vessel position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open to vessel traffic position. From January through December 2017 the bridge opened for vessel traffic 236 times. During this temporary deviation the bridge will operate as follows:

The draw of the SR 605 bascule bridge across the Industrial Seaway Canal, mile 4.5, Hansboro, Harrison County, Mississippi shall open on signal; except the draw need not open 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays. The bridge will open on signal for emergencies.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Public participation is essential to effective rulemaking. The Coast Guard will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this notification, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the start date for blasting operations. The rule must be in force by February 10, 2019, to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated with rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations.

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 needed to mitigate the potential safety hazards associated with rock blasting, dredging and rock removal operations in this location.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that there are potential hazards associated with the rock blasting and dredging operations. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within a 500-yard radius of rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations

This rule establishes a safety zone from February 10, 2019, through March 15, 2019. The safety zone covers all navigable waters in the Delaware River within 500 yards of vessels and machinery being used to conduct rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations between Marcus Hook Range and Tinicum Range. The safety zone will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic, except for the short periods of time when explosive detonations are being conducted and shortly thereafter, when the channel is being surveyed to ensure the navigational channel is clear for vessels to transit. These detonations will not occur more than three times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit. This rule describes communications for notifying waterway users of upcoming detonations and provides means for waterway users to request entry into the safety zone.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and traffic management of the safety zone. The safety zone will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic, except for the short periods of time when explosive detonations are being conducted. The blasting detonations will not occur more than three times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit. Moreover, the Coast Guard will work in coordination with the pilots to ensure vessel traffic is limited during the times of detonation and Broadcast Notice to Mariners are made via VHF-FM marine channel 13 and 16 when blasting operations will occur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone to protect waterway users that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, the EPA from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997, the EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between the EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) (62 FR 27968). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On March 20, 2013, the EPA published a Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for Washington (78 FR 17108). The EPA subsequently published updates to the IBR material for Washington on December 8, 2014 (79 FR 72548) and April 12, 2016 (70 FR 21470). Since the publication of the last IBR update, the EPA approved and incorporated by reference the changes listed below.

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, section 173-400-025 (Adoption of Federal Rules). For more information, see 81 FR 69385 (October 6, 2016).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, section 173-400-025 (Adoption of Federal Rules). For more information, see 81 FR 69385 (October 6, 2016).

• Southwest Clean Air Agency, SWCAA 400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 400-036 (Portable Sources from Other Washington Jurisdictions), 400-072 (Small Unit Notification for Selected Source Categories), 400-106 (Emission Testing and Monitoring at Air Contaminant Sources), 400-130 (Use of Emission Reduction Credits), 400-131 (Deposit of Emission Reduction Credits Into Bank), 400-136 (Maintenance of Emission Reduction Credits in Bank), 400-800 (Major Stationary Source and Major Modification in a Nonattainment Area), 400-810 (Major Stationary Source and Major Modification Definitions), 400-820 (Determining if a New Stationary Source or Modification to a Stationary Source is Subject to These Requirements), 400-830 (Permitting Requirements), 400-840 (Emission Offset Requirements), 400-850 (Actual Emissions—Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL)), 400-860 (Public Involvement Procedures), Appendix A (SWCAA Method 9 Visual Opacity Determination Method), and Appendix B (Description of Vancouver Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area Boundary). For more information, see 82 FR 17136 (April 10, 2017).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 173-400-117 (Special Protection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas), 173-400-118 (Designation of Class I, II, and III Areas), and 173-400-560 (General Order of Approval). For more information, see 82 FR 17136 (April 10, 2017).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-476, Ambient Air Quality Standards, sections 173-476-020 (Applicability), 173-476-150 (Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone), and 173-476-900 (Table of Standards). For more information, see 81 FR 69385 (October 6, 2016).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 173-400-110 (New Source Review (NSR) for Sources and Portable Sources) and 173-400-112 (Requirements for New Sources in Nonattainment Areas—Review for Compliance with Regulations). For more information, see 81 FR 66823 (September 29, 2016).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 173-400-040 (General Standards for Maximum Emissions), 173-400-050 (Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units), 173-400-060 (Emission Standards for General Process Units), 173-400-070 (Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories), 173-400-105 (Records, Monitoring, and Reporting), 173-400-111 (Processing Notice of Construction Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Sources), 173-400-116 (Increment Protection), 173-400-171 (Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment), 173-400-710 (Definitions), 173-400-720 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)), 173-400-730 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Application Processing Procedures), 173-400-740 (PSD Permitting Public Involvement Requirements), 173-400-810 (Major Stationary Source and Major Modification Definitions), 173-400-830 (Permitting Requirements), 173-400-840 (Emission Offset Requirements), and 173-400-850 (Actual Emissions Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL)). For more information, see 81 FR 69385 (October 6, 2016).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 463-78, General and Operating Permit Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 463-78-005 (Adoption by Reference), 463-78-010 (Purpose), 463-78-020 (Applicability), 463-78-030 (Additional Definitions), 463-78-095 (Permit Issuance), and 463-78-120 (Monitoring and Special Report). For more information, see 82 FR 24531 (May 30, 2017).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 173-400-040 (General Standards for Maximum Emissions), 173-400-050 (Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units), 173-400-060 (Emission Standards for General Process Units), 173-400-070 (Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories), 173-400-105 (Records, Monitoring, and Reporting), 173-400-111 (Processing Notice of Construction Applications for Sources, Stationary Sources and Portable Sources), 173-400-171 (Public Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment), 173-400-810 (Major Stationary Source and Major Modification Definitions), 173-400-830 (Permitting Requirements), 173-400-840 (Emission Offset Requirements), and 173-400-850 (Actual Emissions Plantwide Applicability Limitation (PAL)). For more information, see 81 FR 69385 (October 6, 2016).

• Southwest Clean Air Agency, SWCAA 400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 400-010 (Policy and Purpose), 400-020 (Applicability), 400-030 (Definitions), 400-040 (General Standards for Maximum Emissions), 400-050 (Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units), 400-060 (Emission Standards for General Process Units), 400-070 (General Requirements for Certain Source Categories), 400-074 (Gasoline Transport Tanker Registration), 400-081 (Startup and Shutdown), 400-091 (Voluntary Limits on Emissions), 400-105 (Records, Monitoring and Reporting), 400-109 (Air Discharge Permit Applications), 400-110 (Application Review Process for Stationary Sources (New Source Review)), 400-111 (Requirements for New Sources in a Maintenance Plan Area), 400-112 (Requirements for New Sources in Nonattainment Areas), 400-113 (Requirements for New Sources in Attainment or Nonclassifiable Areas), 400-114 (Requirements for Replacement or Substantial Alteration of Emission Control Technology at an Existing Stationary Source), 400-116 (Maintenance of Equipment), 400-151 (Retrofit Requirements for Visibility Protection), 400-161 (Compliance Schedules), 400-171 (Public Involvement), 400-190 (Requirements for Nonattainment Areas), 400-200 (Vertical Dispersion Requirement, Creditable Stack Height and Dispersion Techniques), 400-205 (Adjustment for Atmospheric Conditions), and 400-210 (Emission Requirements of Prior Jurisdictions). For more information, see 82 FR 17136 (April 10, 2017). We note that we are correcting a typographical error in Table 8 to exclude SWCAA 400-113(5) from the SIP consistent with the original proposal and final rule preamble.

• Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, Regulation I, Article VI—Emissions Prohibited, sections 6.05 (Particulate Matter and Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne), 6.14 (Standards for Control of Particulate Matter on Paved Surfaces), and 6.15 (Standards for Control of Particulate Matter on Unpaved Roads). For more information, see 81 FR 21470 (April 12, 2016).

• Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 463-39-100 (Registration) and WAC 173-400-151 (Retrofit Requirements), as adopted by reference in WAC 463-78-005. For more information, see 82 FR 24531 (May 30, 2017).

• Southwest Clean Air Agency, SWCAA 400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 400-052 (Stack Sampling of Major Combustion Sources), 400-090 (Voluntary Limits on Emissions), 400-100 (Registration and Operating Permits), and 400-101 (Sources Exempt from Registration Requirements). For more information, see 82 FR 17136 (April 10, 2017).

• Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-400, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, sections 173-400-010 (Policy and Purpose), 173-400-020 (Applicability), 173-400-030 (Definitions), 173-400-040 (General Standards for Maximum Emissions), 173-400-050 (Emission Standards for Combustion and Incineration Units), 173-400-060 (Emission Standards for General Process Units), 173-400-070 (Emission Standards for Certain Source Categories), 173-400-081 (Startup and Shutdown), 173-400-091 (Voluntary Limits on Emissions), 173-400-100 (Registration), 173-400-105 (Records, Monitoring and Reporting), 173-400-107 (Excess Emissions), 173-400-110 (New Source Review (NSR)), 173-400-112 (Requirements for New Sources in Nonattainment Areas), 173-400-113 (Requirements for New Sources in Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas), 173-400-151 (Retrofit Requirements for Visibility Protection), 173-400-161 (Compliance Schedules), 173-400-171 (Public Involvement), 173-400-190 (Requirements for Nonattainment Areas), 173-400-200 (Creditable Stack Height & Dispersion Techniques), 173-400-205 (Adjustment for Atmospheric Conditions), and 173-400-210 (Emission Requirements of Prior Jurisdictions). For more information, see 82 FR 17136 (April 10, 2017).

• Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, Regulation I, Article VI—Emissions Prohibited, section 6.16 (Motor Fuel Specifications for Oxygenated Gasoline). In a final action dated June 29, 2005, the EPA approved the request to remove section 6.16 as a control measure for the Spokane carbon monoxide maintenance area (70 FR 37269, page 37271). As discussed in the preamble for that action, the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency repealed section 6.16 on September 1, 2005, with a commitment approved as part of the maintenance plan they would re-adopt section 6.16 should the Spokane area violate the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As part of our March 20, 2013 action beginning the new IBR procedure for Washington, the EPA inadvertently included section 6.16 as an active control measure under 40 CFR 52.2470(c). The EPA is now correcting that typographical error.

• As part of the EPA's approval of the second 10-year carbon monoxide limited maintenance plan for the Spokane area, we removed the associated order and amendment for the former Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation's aluminum reduction plant located in Mead, Washington from the incorporation by reference because the facility had been shut down, dismantled, and the operating permit had been revoked. For more information, see 81 FR 45417 (July 14, 2016).

In this action, the EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of November 1, 2018. The EPA is also correcting minor typographical errors in subsection 52.2470(c), including removing SRCAA, Regulation I, section 6.16 and SWCAA 400-113(5), as discussed above. This action also corrects the EPA's approval date for the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council's incorporation by reference of WAC 173-400-060, which was inadvertently omitted in our May 30, 2017 final action (82 FR 24531). Lastly, the EPA is rearranging the content of subsection 52.2470(e) to organize the actions by pollutant and type for clarity. The EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously EPA-approved regulations promulgated by Washington and federally-effective prior to November 1, 2018. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Washington regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Washington SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Washington.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Background information. On May 3, 2018, the EPA proposed revisions to the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in “Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Risk and Technology Review,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358. A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https:// www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/friction-materials-manufacturing-facilities-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website.

Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as inputs to the risk assessments.

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by April 9, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.

For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see 83 FR 19499.

The EPA promulgated the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP on October 18, 2002 (67 FR 64498). The standards are codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart QQQQQ. The Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities industry consists of facilities that manufacture friction materials using a solvent-based process. Friction materials are used in the manufacture of products used to accelerate or decelerate objects. Products that use friction materials include, but are not limited to, disc brake pucks, disc brake pads, brake linings, brake shoes, brake segments, blocks, brake discs, clutch facings, and clutches. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes two facilities.

The affected source is each friction material manufacturing solvent mixer. The NESHAP regulates emissions of HAP through emission standards for solvent, which are emitted from solvent mixers. Facilities subject to the NESHAP must reduce the emissions by using solvent recovery or another approved method. The emission standards are the same for new and existing solvent mixers, but are different for small and large solvent mixers. The emission limit for new, reconstructed, and existing large solvent mixers requires each facility that operates a large solvent mixer to limit HAP solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 30 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average. The emission limit for new, reconstructed, and existing small solvent mixers requires facilities operating small solvent mixers to limit HAP solvent emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 15 percent of that which would otherwise be emitted in the absence of solvent recovery and/or solvent substitution, based on a 7-day block average.

On May 3, 2018, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In the proposed rule, we proposed revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions in the EPA's “General Provisions” implementing CAA section 112 at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, that exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM. In addition, we proposed to revise the rule's reporting requirements for deviations.

This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including amendments to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule and revisions to the rule's reporting requirements for deviations.

The EPA proposed no changes to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, NESHAP based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from the source category following implementation of MACT standards are acceptable, considering all the health information and factors evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls and, thus, are not making any revisions to the existing standards, in order to meet the requirements of CAA section 112(f). (However, as previously noted, we are making limited changes in order to improve implementation and to conform our standards to the 2008 Sierra Club ruling regarding SSM.)

We determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. The EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment period that affected our determinations. Therefore, we are not finalizing revisions to the MACT standards in order to meet the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6). (Again, however, we are making limited changes for other purposes, as previously noted and explained in detail below.)

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 “General Provisions” regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.

We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. We have also revised Table 4 to subpart QQQQQ of Part 63 (the General Provisions applicability table) in several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that are related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposal and summarized below.

The EPA is promulgating revisions to the rule's reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.9540(c)(2) for deviations by requiring facilities to now report the date, time, a list of affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, and the corrective action taken. In addition, facilities must continue to report the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable). To see how the revised regulatory text compares to the previous text, see the document, “Redline Version Showing Proposed Changes to 40 CFR part 63 subpart QQQQQ,” presenting 40 CFR 63.9540(c)(2), in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358.

The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are effective on February 8, 2019. The compliance date for existing affected sources, whether subject to the existing or new source limits in the original rule, to comply with the revised requirements is no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule. Affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 3, 2018, must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, February 8, 2019, or upon startup, whichever is later.

All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, until the applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA sections 112(d)(10) and 112(f)(3). For existing sources, we are finalizing two changes that would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are changing the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make any necessary adjustments in their practice of reporting deviations per the rule's revised requirements; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is finalizing that existing affected sources must be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date.

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358.

For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, category risk assessment conducted at proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable emissions from the two facilities subject to the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP. Allowable emissions for the Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) at proposal were estimated to be equal to actual emissions. Allowable emissions for Knowlton Technologies LLC were set to the standard minimum of 70 percent of what otherwise would be emitted. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from the source category was less than 1-in-1-million. The assessment showed that no people faced an increased cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this source category. The risk analysis at proposal indicated very low cancer incidence (0.000005 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 200,000 years), as well as low potential for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The acute screening assessment indicated no pollutants or facilities exceeding a hazard quotient value of 1. Therefore, we found there was little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts. In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects, no HAP emissions known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment were found in this source category. Therefore, we estimate that there is no multipathway risk from HAP emissions from this source category. Considering all the health risk information, the EPA proposed that the risks from the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category were acceptable, and that implementation of the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

In response to comments on the proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ RTR, the EPA acknowledges that, although the EPA's method of calculating cancer incidence was implemented correctly, with the results presented correctly in the RTR risk report, we agree that the average risk values provided for the demographic analysis were calculated incorrectly. The EPA corrected the values for the demographics analysis and provided those corrections in the final RTR risk report for this source category. After making this correction, the EPA finds that the risks presented by HAP emissions from this source category are still acceptable and that the NESHAP protects public health with an ample margin of safety. The demographic analysis provides information about the demographic composition of the populations exposed to HAP emissions from this source category. The correction to the average risk values for the demographic analysis did not affect any decision in this rulemaking. All other parts of the risk review remained unchanged from proposal.

We received several comments regarding the proposed risk review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). Generally, the comments misunderstood the type of data used for the development of the risk review or suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment methodology. After review of these comments, we determined that no changes were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, “Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Risk and Technology Review,” which is available in the docket for this action.

These comments resulted in the EPA correcting the demographic analysis, which did not result in a change in the EPA's determination that the risks for this source category are acceptable and that the NESHAP protects public health with an ample margin of safety.

Additionally, a stakeholder commented on how the EPA set allowable emissions equal to actual emissions at RFPC. The EPA agrees with the stakeholder that allowable emissions should have been calculated by setting the solvent mixer emissions at 30 percent of the total solvent used, which is the requirement in the rule. However, this would result in a lower emissions calculation than what was used at proposal to estimate risk at allowable emission levels. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the proposal risk estimates for allowable emissions were overestimated, and, since we found that even with this overestimate that risks are acceptable and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety, it is not necessary to re-run the model file in order to reflect such a correction.

Lastly, one comment resulted in the EPA clarifying the inclusion of emissions that do not come from affected sources in the source category. The stakeholder points out that the EPA assumes fugitive emissions are controlled under this standard. The EPA clarifies in the response to comments (RTC) document that phenol and formaldehyde emissions from Knowlton are non-affected source fugitive emissions. Including phenol and formaldehyde in the risk model results in a conservative assessment of risk presented by emissions that do not come from the affected sources in the source category, but from other points at the facility that are not subject to this NESHAP.

We evaluated all the comments on the EPA's risk review and determined that other than the change in the demographic analysis calculation, which did not result in a change to the risk determination, no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our risk review determination as proposed.

Our review of the developments in technology for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category did not reveal any changes in practices, processes, and controls that warrant revisions to the emission standards. Because our review did not identify any cost-effective practices, processes, or controls to reduce emissions in the category since promulgation of the current NESHAP, we proposed that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

The technology review did not change from proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposal determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).

We received several comments regarding the proposed technology review and our determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). We received no comments that identified improved control technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category since promulgation of the current NESHAP. Generally, the commenters misunderstood the role of the technology review and the associated evaluations of technological advancements. After review of these comments, we determined that no changes were necessary. The comments and our specific responses can be found in the document, “Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Risk and Technology Review,” which is available in the docket for this action.

Of the comments pertaining to the technology review, there were several comments that addressed the EPA's discussion of non-solvent mixers. Several comments addressed the concern that the EPA was appearing to endorse facilities' averaging among mixers in order to comply with the standard. The EPA stated in the RTC document and reiterates here that compliance determinations are not part of the RTR, that the current standards apply on a mixer-by-mixer basis, and that the EPA is not proposing any changes to the source category or affected source definitions in this action.

Our technology review looked for add-on control technology that was not identified during the original NESHAP development and for improvements to existing add-on controls. We also looked for new work practices, operational procedures, process changes, pollution prevention alternatives, coating formulations, or application techniques that have the potential to reduce emissions. Since our review did not identify any cost-effective improved control technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category since promulgation of the current NESHAP, we proposed that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Since proposal, no information has been presented to cause us to change the proposed determination. Consequently, we are finalizing our CAA section 112(d)(6) determination as proposed.

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 General Provisions regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.

We proposed amendments to the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 19499).

The SSM provisions did not change from proposal.

We received one comment supporting our proposed changes to the SSM provisions. The EPA acknowledges the comment supporting the proposed changes.

We evaluated the comment on the EPA's proposed amendments to the SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that these amendments remove or revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 19499). We are finalizing the amendments to remove or revise provisions related to SSM, as proposed.

There are currently two friction materials manufacturing facilities operating in the United States that are subject to the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, affected source is the solvent mixers used for friction manufacturing products. A new affected source is a completely new friction products manufacturing source where previously no friction products manufacturing had existed.

At the current level of control, the EPA estimates emissions of total HAP are approximately 240 tpy. Because we are not finalizing revisions to the emission limits other than to make them applicable during SSM periods, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as a result of the proposed amendments, since facilities are already in compliance with emission limits during all periods, including SSM.

The two existing friction materials manufacturing facilities that are subject to the final amendments would incur a net cost savings resulting from the revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The 2016 equivalent annualized value (in 2016 dollars) of these net cost savings from 2019 through 2026 is $5,920 per year when costs are discounted at a 7-percent rate, and $6,648 per year when costs are discounted at a 3-percent rate. For further information on the costs and cost savings associated with the requirements being revised, see the memorandum, “Economic Impact Analysis for Friction Material Manufacturing Final Rule,” and the document, “Friction Materials Manufacturing 2018 Supporting Statement,” which are both available in the docket for this action.

As noted earlier, this action will result in a net cost savings to affected entities. This cost savings is not expected to have adverse economic impacts.

The EPA did not change any of the emission limit requirements and estimates the final changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring are not economically significant. Because these final amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866 and because no emission reductions were estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category across different demographic groups within the populations living near facilities. 2

The results of the demographic analysis was updated from proposal to reflect corrections made to the analysis from comments received by the EPA and are summarized in Table 2 below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.

The results of the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category do not expose people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million based on actual or allowable emissions. Also, no people are exposed to a chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index greater than 1 based on actual or allowable emissions. The percentages of the at-risk population are much smaller than their respective nationwide percentages for all demographic groups.

The EPA received comment on our proposed rule stating that we ignored unacceptably disproportionate effects on environmental justice communities. As noted above, we corrected our demographic analysis. For this source category, cancer risks were less than 1-in-1 million and the noncancer hazards were less than 1. At these risk levels, all populations are exposed to an acceptable level with an ample margin of safety without any demographic group (including Native American Indians) being disproportionately impacted. A more detailed demographic risk analysis may be conducted at the facility level if risk findings for the source category indicate a level that is unacceptable without an ample margin of safety.

The EPA has, therefore, reaffirmed its determination that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations because it maintains the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations.

The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, “Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Source Category,” available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0358 for this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in “Residual Risk Assessment for the Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,” available in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2017-0358 for this action.

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

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.

The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2025.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

We are finalizing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements and increasing reporting requirements for the semiannual report of deviation. We also recalculated the estimated recordkeeping burden for records of SSM to more accurately represent the removal of the SSM exemption, which is discussed in more detail in the memorandum, “Email Correspondence Estimating the Cost of SSM Reporting with Knowlton Technologies, LLC.”

Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that produce friction products subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQQ).

Estimated number of respondents: Two facilities.

Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be 535 hours (per year). Of these, 115 hours (per year) is the reduced burden to comply with the rule amendments. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $35,200 (rounded, per year), including $544 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. This results in a decrease of $7,400 (rounded, per year) to comply with the amendments to the rule.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no small entities in this regulated industry.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in the friction material manufacturing industry that would be affected by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in sections III.A and IV.A and B of this preamble.

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

This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. However, the Agency identified no such standards. Therefore, the EPA has decided to continue the use of the weighing procedures based on EPA Method 28 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (section 10.1) for weighing of recovered solvent. A thorough summary of the search conducted and results are included in the memorandum titled “Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review,” which is available in the docket for this action.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The documentation for this decision is contained in the technical report, “Friction Materials Manufacturing Demographic Analysis,” which is available in the docket for this action.

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order ( Order ), FCC 18-174, adopted December 10, 2018 and released on December 11, 2018. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In this Report and Order ( Order ), we eliminate the provisions in parts 1, 5, 73 and 74 of our rules that require the posting and maintenance of broadcast licenses and related information in specific locations. 1 In May 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) (83 FR 30901) seeking comment on whether to eliminate license posting rules that appeared to be redundant and obsolete now that licensing information is readily accessible online through the Commission's databases. Commenters in this proceeding unanimously support the elimination of these rules. As detailed below, we find that eliminating these requirements, which apply in some form to all broadcast licensees, will serve the public interest. In doing so, we advance the Commission's goal of modernizing our media rules and remove unnecessary regulatory burdens that impede competition and innovation in the media marketplace.

2. Broadcast license posting rules predate the establishment of the Commission. As explained in the NPRM, the Federal Radio Commission promulgated the earliest iteration of broadcast license posting requirements on record in 1930. Subsequent Commission decisions revised and expanded to new broadcast services license posting obligations and requirements to maintain records at specific locations, but provided no explicit rationale for such rules. Based on the text and history of these rules, the NPRM noted that the intended purpose of the rules may have been to ensure that information regarding station authorizations, ownership, and contact information was readily available and easily accessible to the Commission and public. Commenters in this proceeding do not identify any alternative purpose or use for these rules and maintain that, with the advent of online sources for licensee information, the burdens that compliance with these rules imposes on licensees clearly outweigh any original benefits they may have provided.

3. Consistent with our proposals in the NPRM, we eliminate the license posting rules applicable to broadcasters and the related rules that require records to be maintained at specific locations. 2 We agree with commenters that “while the posting rule[s] may have made sense almost 90 years ago” they no longer serve the public interest given that all Commission licenses and related authorizations required to be displayed or maintained are now available “24/7” through publicly accessible online databases. Specifically, broadcast station licenses and other authorizations are currently accessible online through several Commission databases, including the Commission's Consolidated Database System (CDBS), Licensing Management System (LMS), and Universal Licensing Service (ULS). 3 For full power and Class A television stations and AM and FM radio stations, licenses and related authorizations are also accessible through the Commission's Online Public Inspection File. 4 In addition, the public may access orders and dispositions regarding station construction or facilities operation, which are required to be physically posted pursuant to two of our existing rules, through the Commission's online licensing databases.

4. We also find the additional posting requirements in §§ 74.765(b) and 74.1265(b) of our rules to be unnecessary for similar reasons. These provisions require that LPTV, translator, and booster stations post at the transmitter site the station's call sign; the name, address, and telephone number of the licensee or local representative of the licensee; and “the name and address of a person and place where the station records are maintained.” As Nexstar notes in its comments, much of the information required to be posted under these rules is available on the station licenses or authorizations themselves, which as noted above, the public may easily access online via CDBS, LMS, or ULS. This information includes the station's call sign and the name and address of the station's licensee. Although LPTV, translator, and booster stations are not required to maintain public inspection files, they must include the contact information, including a telephone number, of personnel that may serve as a general point of contact on various Commission forms, which are publicly available via our online licensing databases. We therefore find no continued need for broadcasters to separately identify a local representative or a custodian of station records and display such information. 5 Moreover, no commenter has provided any justification for continuing to require broadcasters to post or maintain at specific locations a physical copy of their licenses, authorizations, or general or local contact information.

5. We further find that requirements to physically display licensing documents at the site of broadcast facilities are often ineffective. As NAB illustrates, requirements that mandate posting at the transmission site can be of little benefit to the public because certain transmission sites, including those of booster and translator stations, “are often in areas surrounded by security fencing, thereby limiting the public access to these facilities and any posted information.” Further, provisions mandating that broadcasters post licenses and other authorizations at the “principal [control] point of the transmitter” have been rendered obsolete by the internet, which has enabled broadcasters to transition to dial-up or IP systems that manage their transmitter stations remotely through a smartphone or personal computer. This trend, in conjunction with the elimination of the broadcast main studio rule, has rendered the physical posting of licenses out of step with technology and our other rules. We agree with NAB that “posting physical documents at transmission facilities is redundant and provides no meaningful value to the public,” and we eliminate these requirements.

6. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that eliminating license posting and related requirements would undermine any public safety objectives. HC2 explains that posted information “is often barely visible because the posting is well above eye level, or obscured by other equipment, or damaged and faded as a result of weather” and is therefore not useful during emergencies. 6 In these circumstances, the contact information first responders need is readily available through the Commission databases. 7 Commenters also explain that because licensees typically do not own the towers on which their antennas are placed, eliminating requirements to have licensees' information physically displayed would not likely impede a first responder's ability to contact the appropriate person during an emergency. In many cases, antenna structure registration numbers allow first responders and others to rapidly identify the owner of a tower structure in the event of a tower lighting outage, collision or other problem, removing the need for licensee contact information.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the provisions in parts 1, 5, 73 and 74 of our rules requiring the physical posting and maintenance of broadcast licenses and related information at specific locations are redundant, obsolete, and unduly burdensome. Accordingly, we find that eliminating these requirements, as well as associated cross-references to them and similar requirements, is in the public interest and that the benefits of eliminating these requirements outweigh any costs of doing so.

8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 8 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) in MB Docket 18-121. 9 The Commission sought written public comments on proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no direct comments on the IRFA. The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

9. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. The Report and Order ( Order ) arises from a Public Notice issued by the Commission in May 2017, launching an initiative to modernize the Commission's media regulations, and the subsequent NPRM. 10 It eliminates provisions of the Commission's rules which require the posting and maintenance of broadcast licenses and related information in specific locations. Numerous parties in those proceedings argued for the elimination of these rules on the basis that they are redundant and obsolete.

10. Specifically, the Order eliminates: Section 73.1230, which requires broadcast stations to post their station license and other authorizations at “the principal control point of the transmitter” and prescribes the manner of such posting;  11 § 73.801, which applies § 73.1230 to low power stations;  12 § 74.1265, which requires FM booster and translator stations to physically display their call sign and other information at the antenna site;  13 §§ 74.564 and 74.664, applicable to aural and television broadcast auxiliary stations, 14 respectively, which require stations to post licenses and any other authorizations “in the room in which the transmitter is located” and prescribes the manner of such posting;  15 §§ 74.432(j) and 74.832(j), which require remote pickup station and low power auxiliary station licensees to post licenses either at the transmitter or station control point;  16 § 5.203(b), 17 which requires broadcast licensees to post experimental authorizations along with their station license; § 1.62(a)(2), 18 which requires all Commission licensees, including broadcast entities, to post information pertaining to license renewal applications as well as the license itself; and § 74.765, which requires LPTV and TV translator to physically display their call sign together with the name, address, and telephone number of the licensee or local representative of the licensee and the name and address of a person and place where station records are maintained at the antenna site. Sections 74.765(a) and 74.1265(a) also contain record maintenance obligations that this Order eliminates because they are duplicative of §§ 74.781 and 74.1281, respectively.

11. The Order also removes similar requirements and cross-references to licenses posting rules as follows: Section 0.408 (cross-referencing the license posting rules); § 73.158(b), which requires any updated descriptions of directional antenna monitoring points to be “posted with the existing station license”; § 73.801, which applies § 73.1230 to LPFM stations; § 73.1715(a), which requires broadcast licensees authorized to share time to file written agreements with the Commission and post with the station license; § 73.1725(c), requiring “the licensee of a secondary station which is authorized to operate limited time” to post approval of its limited time operating schedule with the station license); § 73.1870(b)(3), which states that “the designation of the chief operator [for full power and Class A stations] must be in writing with a copy of the designation posted with the station license. ”; § 74.733(i), which states that “[t]he provisions of § 74.765 concerning posting of station license shall apply to a UHF translator signal booster . . .”; § 74.781(c), which states that “[t]he name of the person keeping [LPTV and TV translator] station records, together with the address of the place where the records are kept, shall be posted in accordance with § 74.765(c) of the rules.”; § 74.787(a)(5)(viii), which applies § 74.765 to digital low power television and television translator stations; § 74.789; and § 74.1281, which references § 74.1265(b). These rule changes are intended to reduce outdated regulations and unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and innovation in media markets.

12. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.

13. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. 19 The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to this proceeding.

14. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted. 20 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction”  21 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 22 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 23 The final rules adopted herein affect small television and radio broadcast stations. A description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below.

15. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”  24 These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. 25 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 26 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 95 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more. 27 Based on this data, we estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.

16. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,349. 28 Of this total, 1,277 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on October 1, 2018. Such entities, therefore, qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 412. 29 The Commission, however, does not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

17. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations  30 must be included. Our estimate, therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the proposed rules would apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore could be over-inclusive.

18. There are also 1,911 LPTV stations and 389 Class A stations. 31 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

19. Radio Stations. This economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.”  32 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 33 Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 firms in this category operated in that year. 34 Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 43 firms had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more. 35 Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard, the majority of such entities are small entities.

20. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,626 stations  36 and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,737, for a total number of 11,363. 37 Of this total, 11,362 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on October 1, 2018. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of noncommercial educational FM radio stations to be 4,130. 38 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. 39 Therefore, we estimate that the majority of radio broadcast stations are small entities.

21. Low Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to radio stations would apply to low power FM stations. As noted above, the SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 40 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed low power FM stations to be 1,966. 41 In addition, as of June 30, 2017, there were a total of 7,453 FM translator and FM booster stations. 42 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

22. We note again, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations  43 must be included. Because we do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an entity meets the applicable revenue threshold, our estimate of the number of small radio broadcast stations affected is likely overstated. In addition, as noted above, one element of the definition of “small business” is that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, our estimate of small radio stations potentially affected by the proposed rules includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.

23. Description of Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements in the Order and consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by any such requirements.

24. Reporting Requirements. The Order does not adopt new reporting requirements.

25. Recordkeeping Requirements. The Order does not adopt new recordkeeping requirements.

26. Other Compliance Requirements. The Order does not adopt new compliance requirements. Because no commenter provided information specifically quantifying the costs and administrative burdens of complying with the existing recordkeeping requirements, we cannot precisely estimate the impact on small entities of eliminating them. The adopted rule revisions remove certain record keeping requirements for all affected broadcast licensees, including small entities. Numerous parties in the Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, including all parties which commented on the NPRM have requested that the Commission remove broadcast license posting requirements and related record keeping requirements and no parties in this proceeding opposed such proposals.

27. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 44

28. The Order eliminates recordkeeping obligations requiring the posting of broadcast stations' license and other authorizations. 45 These actions are intended to modernize the Commission's regulations and reduce costs and recordkeeping burdens for affected entities, including small entities. Under the revised rules, affected entities no longer will need to expend time and resources posting licenses and related information already available to the Commission, and most of which is publicly accessible by electronic means.

29. This document eliminates, and thus does not contain new or revised, information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

30. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

31. Additional Information. —For additional information on this proceeding, contact Jonathan Mark, Jonathan.Mark@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-3634.

32. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 303, 309, 310, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303, 309, 310, and 336, this Report and Order is adopted.

33. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth in the Final Rules below, effective as of the date of publication of a summary in the Federal Register . 46

34. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

35. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 5, 73, and 74 as follows:

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils 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. All weights for Atlantic migratory group king mackerel (Atlantic king mackerel) below apply as either round or gutted weight.

On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the Federal Register (82 FR 17387). That final rule adjusted the management boundaries, zones, and annual catch limits for Atlantic king mackerel. The commercial quota for Atlantic king mackerel in the southern zone is 4,001,920 lb (1,815,240 kg) for the current fishing year, March 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019 (50 CFR 622.384(b)(2)(ii)). The seasonal quotas are 2,401,152 lb (1,089,144 kg) for the period March 1 through September 30 (50 CFR 622.384(b)(2)(ii)(A)), and 1,600,768 lb (726,096 kg) for October 1 through the end of February (50 CFR 622.384(b)(2)(ii)(B)).

The Atlantic king mackerel southern zone encompasses an area of Federal waters south of a line extending from the state border of North Carolina and South Carolina, as specified in 50 CFR 622.2, and north of a line extending due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (50 CFR 622.369(a)(2)(ii)). From October 1 through January 31, the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from the southern zone that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is 50 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(C)).

However, if NMFS determines that less than 70 percent of the Atlantic southern zone commercial quota specified in 50 CFR 622.384(b)(2)(ii)(B) has been harvested by February 1, then during the month of February, the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from a specified area of the southern zone that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is increased to 75 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(D)). The area of the southern zone in which the commercial trip limit increase applies is in Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida, and north of 25°20′24″ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida.

NMFS has determined that less than 70 percent of the October 1 through the end of February commercial quota for Atlantic king mackerel in the southern zone was harvested by February 1, 2019. Accordingly, a 75-fish commercial trip limit applies to vessels fishing for king mackerel in or from Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat. and north of 25°20′24″ N lat. off the east coast of Florida in the Atlantic southern zone effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on February 7, 2019. The 75-fish trip limit will remain in effect through February 28, 2019, or until the commercial quota is reached and the southern zone closes. On March 1, 2019, the new fishing year begins and a commercial trip limit of 50 fish will again be in effect for this area.

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(D) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit increase constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the commercial trip limits has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit increase. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and delay the fishers' ability to catch more king mackerel to harvest the commercial quota and achieve optimum yield, and would prevent fishers from reaping the socioeconomic benefits associated with this increased commercial trip limit.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

We published a proposed rule for the in-season adjustment to Atlantic herring specifications and sub-annual catch limits (ACLs) for 2019 on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61593). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on December 31, 2018. We received 22 comment letters on the proposed rule, which are summarized in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule.

We implemented 2016-2018 herring specifications on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75731), as recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council. The specifications included an overfishing limit (OFL) of 111,000 mt for 2018. The acceptable biological catch (ABC) for 2018 was also set at 111,000 mt. The ABC was based on the Council's interim control rule, set equal to the OFL with at least a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing, and consistent with the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) advice. The annual catch limit (ACL) for 2018 was 104,800 mt.

In June 2018, a new Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) for herring, reviewed by the Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC), was completed. The assessment concluded that although herring was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring in 2017, poor recruitment would likely result in a substantial decline in herring biomass. The stock assessment estimated that recruitment had been at historic lows during the most recent 5 years (2013-2017). The assessment projected that biomass could increase, after reaching a low in 2019, if recruitment returns to average levels, but that herring catch would need to be reduced, starting in 2018, to prevent overfishing and lower the risk of the stock becoming overfished. The final assessment summary report is available on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) website ( www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/ ).

The Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) allows NMFS to make in-season adjustments to the herring specifications and sub-ACLs to achieve conservation and management objectives, after consultation with the Council, consistent with the Herring FMP's objectives and other FMP provisions. In August 2018, at the request of the Council, we used an in-season adjustment to reduce the 2018 ACL from 104,800 mt to 49,900 mt to reduce the risk of overfishing in 2018 (83 FR 42450, August 22, 2018). This resulted in at least a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing projected for 2018. However, assessment projections indicated that catch would need to be further reduced in 2019 to prevent overfishing and lower the risk of the stock becoming overfished.

By regulation, herring catch limits for 2018, as modified by the 2018 in-season adjustment, remain in effect until replaced. At its September 2018 meeting, the Council adopted a new ABC control rule for the herring fishery developed in Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP and requested we use an in-season adjustment to reduce 2018 herring catch limits for 2019 while it develops new specifications starting in 2020. The Council was scheduled to begin developing the 2019-2021 herring specifications at its September meeting and take final action on the new specifications at its December 2018 meeting. The Council planned for us to implement the new specifications during 2019, based on the new ABC control rule it adopted in Amendment 8. However, because of the time required for the Council to prepare the necessary documentation and for us to review and approve the control rule in Amendment 8 and implement final approved measures, the new specifications would not have been effective early enough to prevent catch from exceeding the lower catch limits required to prevent overfishing in 2019.

To assist us with developing the 2019 in-season adjustment, the Council discussed options for 2019 catch limits at its September 2018 meeting and recommended that we:

• Use the most recent assessment and projections to develop the 2019 specifications;

• Use the ABC control rule approved by the Council in Amendment 8;

• Maintain the sub-ACLs for herring management areas based on the proportions allocated in the 2016-2018 specifications package, including;

○ Area 1A: 28.9 percent,

○ Area 1B: 4.3 percent,

○ Area 2: 27.8 percent,

○ Area 3: 39 percent;

• Proportionally reduce the fixed gear set-aside allocation which is based on a small weir fishery west of Cutler, ME; and

• Set the border transfer (which allows U.S. vessels to transfer herring to Canadian vessels to be processed as food) at 0 mt.

The SSC met on October 10, 2018, to review the recent herring stock assessment and consider herring catch limits. The term of reference for the meeting specified that the SSC use the new ABC control rule adopted by the Council in Amendment 8 to recommend the OFL and ABCs for 2019-2021. After reviewing the results of the stock assessment and information compiled by the Council's Herring Plan Development Team (PDT), the SSC recommended herring OFLs of 30,688 mt in 2019, 38,878 mt in 2020, and 59,788 mt in 2021. The SSC also recommended that herring ABCs should not exceed 21,266 mt in 2019, 16,131 mt in 2020, and 16,131 mt in 2021. The SSC was concerned that the new assessment's recruitment projections used a long-term average, rather than weighting recent low recruitment, resulting in a substantial projected biomass increase for 2021. To mitigate its concerns, the SSC recommended maintaining the 2020 ABC (16,131 mt) for 2021, updating the herring assessment in 2020, and investigating herring's recent low recruitment. The assessment update would enable the SSC to reconsider its 2021 ABC recommendation based on updated estimates of recruitment and biomass.

In response to the Council's request for an in-season adjustment of 2018 herring catch limits for 2019, we proposed reduced catch limits for 2019 in November 2018. The herring ABC we proposed for 2019, as well as the resulting ACL and sub-ACLs, while consistent with methods used to set recent specifications, were higher than limits recommended by the Council and SSC. Our proposed herring catch limits were based on an ABC with a 50-percent probability of preventing overfishing (30,688 mt). In contrast, the Council's recommended 2019 catch limits were based on an ABC of 21,266 mt, generated using the new control rule developed in Amendment 8, and estimated to have a 15-percent probability of overfishing. While the sub-ACL values we proposed for 2019 were higher than those recommended by the Council, our proposed method to allocate catch to the sub-ACLs was consistent with Council recommendations. We intended the proposed catch limits to balance preventing overfishing with maintaining a viable herring fishery to achieve optimum yield (OY), while we consider approval and implementation of a long-term ABC control rule in Amendment 8.

The Council discussed our proposed 2019 herring catch limits at its December 2018 meeting, at which time it firmly reiterated its original recommendations that catch limits be based on an ABC of 21,266 mt and sub-ACL allocations be consistent with recent specifications. The Council explained the necessity of lowering the risks of overfishing and the stock becoming overfished, especially given the uncertainty associated with the assessment's projections of herring biomass and recruitment. It expressed concern that higher catch in 2019 would result in even lower catch limits for 2020. While the Council acknowledged that negative economic impacts on the fishing industry would be greater under the lower catch limits, it stressed that conservation benefits outweighed the short-term revenue considerations. The Council also explained that maintaining recent sub-ACL allocations prevents overfishing on any one sub-component of the herring stock and helps minimize negative economic impacts associated with reduced catch limits by providing fishery access to all gear types and management areas. Following the Council meeting, the Council further detailed its rationale for its recommended 2019 herring catch limits in a December 13, 2018, letter to us.

We work closely with the Council for sustainable management of New England fisheries. The Council develops harvest policies for its fisheries and we tend to defer harvest policy decisions to the Council, unless those policies are inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or other applicable law. The Council expressed concern with our proposed herring catch limits for 2019 and recommended limits be lowered to prevent overfishing and lower the risk of the stock becoming overfished. After considering the Council's policy concerns and to better account for scientific uncertainty, we are adjusting the 2018 herring specifications and sub-ACLs for 2019 to achieve conservation and management objectives, consistent with the Council's recommendations, Herring FMP objectives, and other Herring FMP provisions. The final 2019 herring catch limits implemented in this in-season adjustment are shown in Table 1 below.

The Council and NMFS manage fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around the U.S. Pacific Islands pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). In this rule, NMFS, as recommended by the Council, is reclassifying certain bottomfish, coral reef ecosystem, precious coral, and crustacean management unit species (MUS) in the three FEPs as ecosystem component species (ECS). The action focuses Federal conservation and management on the MUS ( i.e., the targets of Federal fisheries).

The Council recommended amending the three FEPs to reclassify certain management unit species as ecosystem component species. The intent of these amendments is to focus management efforts on species that are in need of conservation and management, and improve efficiency of fishery management in the region. On August 8, 2018, NMFS published a notice of availability of the amendments, including an environmental assessment, and request for public comments (83 FR 39039); the comment period ended October 9, 2018. NMFS did not receive any comments directly related to the amendments, and on November 5, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce approved the FEP amendments. This final rule implements the FEP amendments.

This action does not change any fishery operations in terms of location, target and non-target species, catch, effort, fishermen participation, gear composition, seasonality, intensity, or bycatch. For newly designated ECS, the Council and NMFS would no longer establish annual catch limits or associated accountability measures. The Council and NMFS, in cooperation with the State of Hawaii, Territory of American Samoa and Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands will continue to monitor fisheries that catch ECS. If an ECS stock becomes a target of a Federal fishery in the future, NMFS and the Council may consider including that stock in the management unit to actively manage that stock.

This rule reduces the number of MUS from 205 species or families to 11 in the American Samoa FEP, from 227 species or families to 13 in the Marianas FEP, and from 173 species or families to 20 in the Hawaii FEP. Appendix B of the EA contains the complete list of ECS. This rule also updates several scientific and common names according to current scientific classifications. All existing management measures, including reporting and record keeping, prohibitions, and experimental fishing regulations apply to the associated ECS, unless otherwise specified.

You may find additional background information on this action in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 46466, September 13, 2018).

On September 13, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for public comments (83 FR 46466). The comment period ended October 29, 2018. NMFS received one comment that generally supported the rule.

This final rule contains no changes from the proposed rule.

The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of Pacific Island fisheries, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS did not receive any comments regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

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

In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2019 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the CDQ DFA is 1,900 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018), and as adjusted by an inseason adjustment (83 FR 67144, December 28, 2018).

As of January 30, 2019, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)( 4 ), NMFS reallocates 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the 2019 Bering Sea subarea. The 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ DFA is added to the 2019 Bering Sea CDQ DFA. The 2019 Bering Sea subarea pollock incidental catch allowance remains at 46,520 mt. As a result, the 2019 harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea included in the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 11826, February 27, 2018) and as adjusted by an inseason adjustment (83 FR 67144, December 28, 2018) are revised as follows: 0 mt to CDQ DFA. Furthermore, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5), Table 5 of the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 11826, February 27, 2018), as adjusted by the inseason adjustment (83 FR 67144, December 28, 2018), is revised to make 2019 pollock allocations consistent with this reallocation. This reallocation results in an adjustment to the 2019 CDQ pollock allocation established at § 679.20(a)(5).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Aleutian Islands pollock. Since the pollock fishery opened January 20, 2019, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea pollock CDQ DFA. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased seasonal pollock allocations while value is optimum. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 30, 2019.

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

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