The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, to store petroleum to diminish the impact of disruptions on petroleum supplies and to carry out the obligations of the United States under the International Energy Program. The principal method for distributing SPR petroleum is through price competitive sale, 42 U.S.C. 6241(e), and DOE utilizes certain contract terms and conditions—known as Standard Sales Provisions (SSPs)—that are expected to be contained in contracts for the sale of SPR petroleum.

Prior to this final rule, DOE's regulations called for the publication of the Standard Sales Provisions in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as an appendix to 10 CFR part 625, and provided for the periodic review and republication of the Standard Sales Provisions in the Federal Register , including any revisions to such provisions. However, these self-imposed regulatory requirements have inhibited DOE's ability to make timely updates to its Standard Sales Provisions; DOE was last able to update the Standard Sales Provisions in 2005.

As a result, the Standard Sales Provisions have become increasingly inconsistent with changes in crude oil markets, infrastructure, ownership, technology, financial processes, business practices, subsequent legislation and regulations, and other factors and circumstances. In a price competitive sale conducted in 2017, 12 years after the Standard Sales Provisions were last updated, there were 11 pages of changes involving 24 sections of the Standard Sales Provisions in the Notice of Sale. As a result, the time and costs spent by industry associated with cross-referencing changes to the Standard Sales Provisions made applicable to a particular sale has increased, and will likely continue to increase due to the large number of required sales over the next decade. 1

In light of these circumstances, DOE has determined that publishing the Standard Sales Provisions solely on the DOE SPR website, and revising these Standard Sales Provisions as circumstances evolve, would increase the Department's ability to maintain up-to-date Standard Sales Provisions, which in turn will reduce the length and complexity of Notices of Sale published by DOE and reviewed by prospective offerors.

On July 26, 2018, DOE published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR or proposed rule) to amend its regulations to require publication of its Standard Sales Provisions solely on the DOE SPR website instead of in the Federal Register and CFR (83 FR 35438). Publication of the NOPR began a 30-day public comment period that ended on August 27, 2018. DOE received one comment that was not related to the subject matter of the NOPR. The NOPR and comment received on the NOPR can be accessed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOE-HQ-2018-0028-0001.

For additional background information on this final rule, please see the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, DOE provides information on DOE's practice of conducting price competitive sales of petroleum from the SPR through Notices of Sale, DOE's prior practice with respect to its Standard Sales Provisions, and additional discussion in support of this rulemaking.

The final rule revises 10 CFR 625.4 in several respects. First, the Standard Sales Provisions applicable to price competitive sales of petroleum  2 from the SPR will no longer be required to be published in the Federal Register and in the CFR as an Appendix to 10 CFR part 625. Instead, the Standard Sales Provisions applicable to price competitive sales of petroleum from the SPR will be published solely on the DOE SPR website, which is currently at https://www.energy.gov/fe/downloads/price-competitive-sale-strategic-petroleum-reserve-petroleum. Second, under the final rule, revisions to the Standard Sales Provisions will be published solely on the DOE SPR website, instead of in the Federal Register . Third, DOE will publish notification in the Federal Register and send notification to registered users in the SPR sales system each time DOE revises and republishes its Standard Sales Provisions on the DOE SPR website. Fourth, Notices of Sale will reference the continually updated Standard Sales Provisions published on the DOE SPR website, instead of the Federal Register and the CFR, in specifying which contractual terms and conditions, as well as contractor financial and performance responsibility measures, are applicable to a particular sale.

In addition to these revisions to 10 CFR 625.4, the final rule also removes the Standard Sales Provisions from the CFR by deleting Appendix A to 10 CFR part 625.

The Department notes that the web address provided for the DOE SPR website in the regulatory text is the current web address. If the web address for the DOE SPR website changes at some future date, DOE will publish notification of changes to the SPR web address in the Federal Register and update the CFR reference to the web address.

The Department received one comment that was not related to the subject matter of the NOPR. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the preamble and the proposed rule (83 FR 35438; July 26, 2018), the Department is publishing the rulemaking as proposed.

This regulatory action has been determined to not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011.) E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE concludes that this final rule is consistent with these principles. Specifically, this final rule would reduce burdens on potential offerors by reducing the time and cost associated with reviewing changes to the Standard Sales Provisions applicable to a particular sale. The final rule is intended to expedite the preparation of and simplify the content of Notices of Sale, which in turn will reduce the administrative burden placed on prospective bidders.

On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Order stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. The Order stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.

Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The Order required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, Executive Order 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must attempt to identify regulations that:

(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;

(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;

(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;

(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;

(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or

(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.

Finally, on March 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13783, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Among other things, Executive Order 13783 requires the heads of agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. Such review does not include agency actions that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and consistent with the policy set forth elsewhere in that order.

Executive Order 13783 defined burden for purposes of the review of existing regulations to mean to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.

DOE concludes that this final rule is consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders. Specifically, this final rule provides that DOE would publish its Standard Sales Provisions solely on the DOE SPR website as opposed to in the Federal Register and in the CFR. This final rule also provides that DOE would provide notice to impacted parties of revisions to its Standard Sales Provisions. The final rule is intended to expedite the preparation of and simplify the content of Notices of Sale, which in turn will reduce the administrative burden placed on prospective bidders. DOE also anticipates that this final rule would encourage increased participation by the private sector in future sales of petroleum from the SPR, which in turn would benefit the private sector by allowing for greater diversity and competition in sales of petroleum from the SPR.

Per 10 CFR 1021.410(a), DOE has determined that promulgation of these regulations fall into a class of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment as set forth under DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq ). Further, this rulemaking is covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in the DOE's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph A6 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, which applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural. Accordingly, neither an EIS nor an EA is required.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's website: http://www.gc.doe.gov.

DOE has reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. As discussed in the preamble, this final rule provides that DOE would publish its Standard Sales Provisions solely on the DOE SPR website, rather than in the Federal Register and in the CFR. This final rule also provides that DOE would provide notice to impacted parties of revisions to its Standard Sales Provisions. Because it would streamline the process for amending and modifying DOE's Standard Sales Provisions, which would in turn reduce the length and complexity of Notices of Sale published by DOE for sales of petroleum from the SPR, the final rule would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE anticipates that this final rule would encourage increased participation by the private sector in future sales of petroleum from the SPR, by reducing the opportunity cost to participate in such sales. This, in turn, would allow for greater diversity and competition in sales of SPR petroleum from the SPR, including increased participation by small entities.

Therefore, DOE certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE did not prepare a FRFA for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

The final rule does not create or change any requirements subject to review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and the procedures implementing that Act, 5 CFR 1320.1 et seq. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a 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.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on tribal, state, and local governments. Subsection 101(5) of title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include any regulation that would impose upon tribal, state, or local governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on tribal, state, and local governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of that title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in costs to tribal, state, or local governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b). Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposes a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of tribal, state, and local governments. See 2 U.S.C. 1534.

This final rule provides that DOE would publish its Standard Sales Provisions solely on the DOE SPR website, rather than in the Federal Register and in the CFR. DOE has determined that the final rule would not result in the expenditure by tribal, state, and local governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any final rule that may affect family well-being. The final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that have Federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it would not preempt state law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB.

OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has determined that this regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and therefore is not a significant energy action. The final rule would provide for the publication of DOE's Standard Sales Provisions on the SPR website. DOE concluded, as discussed in the proposed rule, that this rulemaking would encourage increased participation by the private sector in future sales of petroleum from the SPR, by reducing the opportunity cost to participate in such sales. This increased participation would allow for greater diversity and competition in sales of SPR petroleum from the SPR, including increased participation by small entities as well as larger industry participants. This increased participation, however, is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy because increased participation in the bidding process does not change the quantity of SPR petroleum offered or delivered. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this final rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 625, chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-12-08, Amendment 39-18182 (80 FR 34262, June 16, 2015) (“AD 2015-12-08”). AD 2015-12-08 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A320-112, A320-131, A320-211, A320-212, A320-213, A320-231, and A320-232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2018 (83 FR 50047). The NPRM was prompted by further investigation that determined that affected oxygen pipes may have been installed on more airplanes than initially identified. The NPRM proposed to revise the applicability to include additional airplane models and additional pipes to be replaced if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address corrosion of the oxygen pipe assemblies, which could lead to blocked or reduced oxygen supply to a flight crew member in case of decompression or smoke/fire in the flight deck. In addition, the presence of particles in oxygen lines, under certain conditions, increases the risk of fire in the flight deck.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0060R1, dated July 19, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; all Model A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, and A321-232 airplanes; and certain Model A320-251N, A320-271N, and A321-271N 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-2018-0806.

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.

Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated its support for the NPRM.

American Airlines requested that additional airplanes be added to paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. American Airlines asserted that Airbus has identified additional airplanes, which are included in Revision 02, dated October 26, 2016; and Revision 03, dated December 8, 2017; of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1069.

We disagree with the request to add airplanes to paragraph (j) of this AD, which contains a new action for those airplanes not affected by AD 2015-12-18. The airplanes identified by the commenter are already included in paragraph (h) of this AD, which contains a retained action from AD 2015-12-18. Adding those airplanes to paragraph (j) of this AD would result in redundant requirements for those airplanes. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

American Airlines requested that we do not require the reporting specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1069, Revision 03, dated December 8, 2017. American Airlines stated that this action is not related to the unsafe condition.

We agree with the request. We have added paragraph (l) to this AD to specify no reporting is required. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs of this AD accordingly.

American Airlines requested that we remove the location from the requirement to flush certain removed parts. American Airlines stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1069, Revision 03, dated December 8, 2017, specifies doing that action in the shop. American Airlines stated that the location of performing that maintenance action is not relevant to correcting the unsafe condition.

We agree with the request for the reason provided by the commenter. We have added paragraph (m)(1) to this AD to specify that the location to flush certain parts is not required by this AD.

American Airlines requested that we include alternative parts for washer part number (P/N) AN960C816. American Airlines stated that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1069, Revision 03, dated December 8, 2017, specifies to install the new crew oxygen pipe with P/N AN960C816, but that part number is obsolete. American Airlines stated that part number can be replaced with alternate P/N NAS1149C0863R, as specified in Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) 35-12-01-03, Item 110. American Airlines requested that we allow the installation of alternate parts as specified in the IPC.

We partially agree with the commenter. We disagree to allow installation of any alternative part specified in the IPC because the IPC is not FAA-approved data. However, we agree to allow the use of alternate P/N NAS1149C0863R. We have added paragraph (m)(2) to this AD to allow the use of that alternate part number.

We stated the following in the NPRM: The Airbus SAS Model A320-216 was type certificated on December 19, 2016. Before that date, any EASA AD that affected Model A320-216 airplanes was included on the Required Airworthiness Action List (RAAL). Model A320-216 airplanes have subsequently been placed on the U.S. Register, and will now be included in FAA AD actions. For Airbus SAS Model A320-216 airplanes, the requirements that correspond to AD 2015-12-08 were mandated by the MCAI via the RAAL. Although that RAAL requirement is still in effect, for continuity and clarity we have identified Airbus SAS Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (c) of this AD; the restated requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD would therefore apply to those airplanes.

However, in paragraph (i) of the NPRM, we excluded Airbus SAS Model A320-216 airplanes. We also included those airplanes in the new requirements in paragraphs (j) and (k) of the NPRM.

We should not have excluded Airbus SAS Model A320-216 airplanes in paragraph (i) of the NPRM since the restated requirements of that paragraph still apply to those airplanes via the RAAL. Likewise, those airplanes should not have been included in the new requirements of paragraphs (j) and (k) of the NPRM because the requirements were already addressed by the restated requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of the NPRM (which correspond to the actions required by the MCAI, EASA AD 2013-0278, via the RAAL). Therefore, we have removed references to Airbus SAS Model A320-216 airplanes from paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD, and removed the text excluding Airbus SAS Model A320-216 from paragraph (i) of this AD.

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 changes described previously and 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.

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

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-35-1069, Revision 03, dated December 8, 2017. The service information describes an inspection to determine the batch number or installation date of the oxygen pipe assembly that is installed at the end of the right-hand crew distribution line, and replacement of the pipe.

This AD also requires Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1069, dated April 26, 2013, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of July 21, 2015 (80 FR 34262, June 16, 2015).

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 50 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

We 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 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 2017-22-13, Amendment 39-19093 (82 FR 51550, November 7, 2017), (“AD 2017-22-13”), for certain RR RB211-Trent 970-84 and RB211-Trent 972-84 turbofan engines. AD 2017-22-13 required an inspection of the drains mast and the replacement or repair of the drains mast if a crack is found. AD 2017-22-13 resulted from cracks found in the transition duct area of the drains mast. We issued AD 2017-22-13 to visually inspect the external areas of the transition duct area of the drains mast for a crack, and if a crack is found, to replace the drains mast or seal the crack.

Since we issued AD 2017-22-13, RR in-service investigations found cracks in the transition duct area of the drains mast. The RR investigation originally highlighted that engines that have installed the sub-idle ejector system introduced in RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-80-H632, Revision 2, dated August 11, 2015, were most at risk of cracking. As a result, RR published Rolls-Royce Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-71-AJ576, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2018, to add engines with a drains mast, P/N KH31996, installed that have installed the sub-idle ejector system introduced in RR SB RB.211-80-H632, Revision 2, dated August 11, 2015, and engines with a drains mast, P/N FW29847, installed or have a drains mast, P/N KH31996, that have not installed the sub-idle ejector system introduced in RR SB RB.211-80-H632, Revision 2, dated August 11, 2015. Also since we issued AD 2017-22-13, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued EASA AD 2018-0185, dated August 29, 2018, which retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0075R1, dated May 5, 2017, but adds repetitive inspections and expands the population of affected RR RB211-Trent 900 turbofan engine models. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB No. RB.211-71-AJ576, Revision 1, dated July 11, 2018. The Alert NMSB describes procedures for inspection, repair, and replacement of the drains mast. 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 Rolls-Royce SB RB.211-80-H632, Revision 2, dated August 11, 2015. The SB describes procedures for installing a new sub-idle ejector system on the low-pressure compressor case.

This product has been approved by EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires visual inspections of the external areas of the transition duct area of the drains mast for a crack. This AD also requires, if a crack is found, replacement of the drains mast with a part eligible for installation or sealing of the crack.

No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-0056 and product identifier 2017-NE-29-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 zero engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.

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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-11-06, Amendment 39-18905 (82 FR 26979, June 13, 2017), (“AD 2017-11-06”). AD 2017-11-06 applied to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037D, PW2037M, PW2040, PW2040D, PW2043, PW2143, PW2643, and F117-PW-100 turbofan engine models. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2018 (83 FR 50860). The NPRM was prompted by a rupture of the diffuser-to-HPT case flange. The NPRM proposed to require an on-wing ECI of all diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

United Airlines requested that we allow FPI for small indication conditions as shown in Table 3 of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 4, dated January 25, 2018.

We partially agree. While we agree that FPI may be an acceptable method to detect these smaller indication cracks, we disagree with requiring FPI because we have not reviewed the desired FPI method or were not informed how well FPI indicates these small cracks versus ECI. We will consider requests for Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) for FPI. We did not change this AD.

Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that we update the Summary and the Required Actions paragraphs of this AD to include “that result in a wrought diffuser case M-flange” language to focus on repairs that resulted in a wrought material.

We disagree. We disagree with focusing only on wrought repairs because all known diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs use wrought material. We will consider further rulemaking action if future diffuser case M-flange replacement repairs use another material. We did not change this AD.

Delta requested that we update the Discussion paragraph to include “by part number” in the statement: “repaired wrought flanges cannot be distinguished from other wrought flanges or from non-repaired flanges on diffuser cases installed on the affected engines.” While the M-flange replacement repair displays a weld line around the circumference of the diffuser case, Delta reasoned that wrought M-flange repairs introduced by the diffuser case M-flange replacement repair do not change the part number (P/N) and, therefore, pose challenges for tracking the repaired diffuser cases.

We partially agree. We agree that the lack of a P/N for the wrought M-flange repair poses challenges for tracking the engines with an M-flange replacement repair. We disagree with modifying the Discussion paragraph because this discussion is not included in this final rule.

Delta requested that we update the service information description in the Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph to “The [Pratt & Whitney] ASB describes procedures for repetitive ECIs of the diffuser case M-flange.” Delta reasoned that the ASB also provides procedures for off-wing ECIs and that the inspection is for the diffuser case M-flange, and not the diffuser case assembly.

We agree. We updated the service information description in the Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph in this AD.

Delta requested that we update the service information in the Credit for Previous Actions paragraph of this AD to include “Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013, or an earlier version.” and “Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 4, dated January 25, 2018, or an earlier version.” Delta reasoned that the language of the NPRM would void inspections completed using the most recent service information.

We disagree. Inspections already completed using the version of the service information specified in this AD are considered “already done” per paragraph (f) of this AD. We did not change this AD.

The Air Line Pilots Association International and FedEx Express expressed support for the NPRM as written. The Boeing Company reviewed the NPRM and had no comments.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and 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.

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

We reviewed Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW2000 72-763, Revision No. 1, dated August 30, 2013. The SB describes procedures for a one-time ECI inspection of the engine diffuser case. We also reviewed Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW2000 A72-765, Revision No. 4, dated January 25, 2018. The ASB describes procedures for repetitive ECIs of the diffuser case M-flange. 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 910 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. Based on the diffuser case identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, we estimate that 339 engines will be required to perform the on-wing ECI inspection. We estimate that all 910 engines will be required to perform the FPI inspection.

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 certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2018 (83 FR 63598). The NPRM was prompted by a report that taperloks used in a certain wing-to-fuselage junction were found to be non-compliant with the applicable specification, resulting in a loss of pre-tension in the fasteners. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive special detailed inspections of the center and outer wing box lower stiffeners and panels at a certain junction on the left- and right-hand sides for any cracking, and repair if necessary, as specified in, and in compliance with, EASA AD 2018-0218, dated October 11, 2018; corrected October 26, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018-0218”). The NPRM also proposed, as specified in EASA AD 2018-0218, an optional modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

We are issuing this AD to address the loss of pre-tension in the fasteners, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0218 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 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-2018-1007.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data 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.

EASA AD 2018-0218 describes procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections of the center and outer wing box lower stiffeners and panels at the level of rib 1 junction on the left- and right-hand sides for any cracking, and repair if necessary. EASA AD 2018-0218 also provides procedures for an optional modification, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This material 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 and it is publicly available through the EASA website.

We estimate that this AD affects 516 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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 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:

Background

Pursuant to the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Public Law 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)), the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Honduras (Honduras) on March 12, 2004, concerning the imposition of import restrictions on certain archaeological material representing the Pre-Columbian cultures of Honduras and ranging in date from approximately 1200 B.C. to 1500 A.D. On March 16, 2004, U.S. Customs and Border Protection published CBP Dec. 04-08 in the Federal Register (69 FR 12267), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions and included a list designating the types of archaeological material covered by the restrictions.

Import restrictions listed at 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period may be extended for additional periods of not more than five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists.

On March 11, 2009, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 09-05) in the Federal Register (74 FR 10482), which amended § 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions for an additional five years, to March 12, 2014.

On September 24, 2013, the United States Department of State proposed in the Federal Register (78 FR 58596) to extend the agreement through a bilateral agreement between the United States and Honduras concerning the imposition of import restrictions on archaeological material from the pre-Columbian cultures of Honduras. On February 11, 2014, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, made the necessary determinations to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years. Additionally, pursuant to his statutory and decision-making authority, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, included the coverage of certain ecclesiastical ethnological material to the Designated List. On March 12, 2014, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 14-03) in the Federal Register (79 FR 13873). This final rule amended § 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of these import restrictions for an additional five years and added restrictions on ecclesiastical ethological material dating to the Colonial Period of Honduras, c. A.D. 1502 to 1821. The amended Designated List of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material is set forth in CBP Dec. 14-03. These import restrictions are due to expire on March 12, 2019.

On December 14, 2018, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendations by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, determined that the cultural heritage of Honduras continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material and that the import restrictions should be extended for an additional five years. Subsequently, a new MOU was concluded between the United States and Honduras. The new MOU supersedes and replaces the prior MOU and extends the import restrictions that went into effect under the prior MOU for an additional five years. This MOU is titled: “Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Republic of Honduras Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Honduras and Ecclesiastical Ethnological Materials from the Colonial Period of Honduras.” Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions.

The restrictions on the importation of archaeological and ecclesiastical ethnological material are to continue in effect through March 12, 2024. Importation of such material from Honduras continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address: https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property-advisory-committee/current-import-restrictions by selecting the material for “Honduras.”

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and section 4(a) of Executive Order 13771.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing obsolete information.

This part was originally published October 23, 1992, under 10 U.S.C. 1143a, and established a program to identify and encourage public and community service to separating DoD service members and civilians within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The rule authorized DoD to counsel and create personnel registries for them to learn about community and public service employment prior to separation and retirement. It required public and community service organizations employers to register in an organizational registry to validate their eligibility. The Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 115-232), section 553 repealed this part's authorizing legislation.

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On December 12, 2017 and August 9, 2018, MDEQ submitted a request to EPA to incorporate revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules entitled Part 1—General Provisions (Part 1). Part 1 is a compilation of the definitions used in Michigan's rules. The submission revises the following Michigan's Air Pollution Control rules: R 336.1101 to 1103, R 336.1106 to 1109, R 336.1112 to 1116, and R 336.1118 to 1123. The revisions are primarily administrative changes. The revisions to Part 1 include a range of administrative changes, from grammatical corrections to language updates.

In the August 9, 2018, submission, MDEQ rescinded its request to modify Part 1 for the following definitions: R336.1101(a) “Act,” R336.1101(h) “Air pollution,” R336.1101(q) “Aqueous based parts washer,” and R336.1103(aa) “Cold cleaner.”

On December 13, 2018 (83 FR 64056), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing approval of Michigan's Part 1 rule. The comment period closed on January 14, 2019. We received an anonymous comment that address subjects outside the scope of our proposed action, does not explain (or provide a legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any way, and makes no specific mention of the substantive aspects of the proposed action. Consequently, this comment is not germane to this rulemaking and therefore, need not be addressed.

EPA is approving the revisions to Michigan's Part 1, as a revision to the Michigan SIP, specifically for the following rules: R 336.1101 Definitions; A (except for (a) Act, (h) Air pollution, and (q) Aqueous based parts washer), R 336.1102 Definitions: B, R 336.1103 Definitions C (except for (aa) Cold cleaner), R 336.1106 Definitions; F, R 336.1107 Definitions; G, R 336.1108 Definitions; H, R 336.1109 Definitions I, R 336.1112 Definitions; L, R 336.1113 Definitions; M, R 336.1114 Definitions; N, R 336.1115 Definitions; O (except for (d) “ `Oral reference dose' or `RfD' ”), R 336.1116 Definitions; P, R 336.1118 Definitions; R, R 336.1119 Definitions; S (except for (c) Secondary risk screening level, and (q) State-only enforceable, and (x) Sufficient evidence), R 336.1120 Definitions; T (except for (f) “ `Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC' ”), R 336.1121 Definitions; U, R 336.1122 Definitions; V, R 336.1123 Definitions; W (except for (c) Weight of evidence). We are also approving a revision removing the following definitions from Part 1: “Allowed emissions,” “Federal land manager,” “Linearized multistage computer model,” “Offset ratio,” and “Very large precipitator.”

EPA is not taking any action on R 336.1103(pp) “Creditable,” R 336.1115(d) “ `Oral reference dose' or `RfD',” 336.1119(c) “Secondary risk screening level,” R 336.1119(q) “State-only enforceable,” R 336.1119(x) “Sufficient evidence,” R 336.1120(f) “ `Toxic air contaminant' or `TAC',” and R 336.1123(c) “Weight of evidence.”

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

On March 23, 2017, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted a request for EPA to approve its infrastructure SIP for the 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. On November 14, 2018 (83 FR 56777), EPA proposed to approve the portion of the submission dealing with requirements one and two (otherwise known as “prongs” one and two) of the provision for interstate pollution transport under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the “good neighbor” provision  1 .

The March 23, 2017 MDEQ submittal included a demonstration that Michigan's SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the interstate transport of pollution. Michigan's submittal also included a technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS that demonstrates that current controls are adequate for Michigan to show that it meets prongs one and two of the “good neighbor” provision. After review, EPA proposed to approve Michigan's request relating to prongs one and two of the “good neighbor” provision.

Our November 14, 2018 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period closed on December 14, 2018. EPA received two supportive comments.

In this action, EPA is approving the portion of Michigan's March 23, 2017 submission certifying that the current Michigan SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever, “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) (hereinafter called “the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS” or “the SO 2 NAAQS”). This standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. 1 On August 5, 2013, the EPA designated 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, including the Miami SO 2 NAA within Arizona. 2 These area designations became effective on October 4, 2013. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIP revisions for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO 2 NAAQS to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., in this case by no later than April 4, 2015. Under CAA section 192, these SIP submissions are required to include measures that will bring the nonattainment area into attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the effective date of designation. The attainment date for the Miami SO 2 NAA was October 4, 2018.

Nonattainment plans for SO 2 must meet sections 110, 172, 191 and 192 of the CAA. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIP submissions are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, the EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIP revisions in the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (“General Preamble”). 3 Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO 2 SIP submissions and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies. 4 On April 23, 2014, the EPA issued guidance for meeting the statutory requirements in SO 2 SIP submissions in a document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions” (“2014 SO 2 Guidance”). 5 In the 2014 SO 2 Guidance, the EPA described the statutory requirements for a complete nonattainment plan, which include: An accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO 2 within the NAA; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of reasonable further progress (RFP); implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control technology (RACT)); new source review; enforceable emissions limitations and control measures; conformity; and adequate contingency measures for the affected area.

For the EPA to fully approve a SIP revision as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, and 191-192 and the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the plan for the affected area needs to demonstrate that each of the aforementioned requirements has been met. Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA may not approve a plan that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement. Under CAA section 193, no requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in any area that is a NAA for any air pollutant may be modified in any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

The EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, finding that Arizona and other states had failed to submit the required SO 2 nonattainment plans for the Miami SO 2 NAA and several other areas by the submittal deadline. 6 This finding, which became effective on April 18, 2016, initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review offset and highway funding sanctions. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the finding unless the State has submitted, and the EPA has approved, the nonattainment plan as meeting applicable requirements.

In response to the EPA's finding, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the Miami SO 2 Plan on March 9, 2017, and submitted associated final rules on April 6, 2017. 7 The EPA issued letters dated July 17, 2017, and September 26, 2017, finding the submittals complete and halting the sanctions clock under CAA section 179(a). 8 Today's final SIP approval terminates the EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP for the area.

The EPA proposed to approve the Miami SO 2 Plan on June 15, 2018. 9 As part of this action, we also proposed to approve the use of AERMOD v14134 and BLP (“BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Approach”) as an alternative model to represent emissions from the roofline of the Miami Smelter (“smelter”). 10 The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received eight comment letters. Six of these comment letters raised issues that are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, including air quality in China, India, and other areas of the United States, wind power, and relations between the United States and Russia. We are not required to respond to these comments and are not doing so here. Two comment letters, one from the Arizona Mining Association (AMA) and one from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Sierra Club (SC), and Arizona Mining Reform Coalition (AMRC) (collectively, “the Non-Governmental Organizations” or “NGOs”) raised issues germane to this action. 11 12 The EPA's summary of germane comments and responses are provided below. All comments received on the proposal are included in the docket for this action.

Comment: The AMA expressed support for our proposed approval of the Miami SO 2 SIP. In addition, the commenter specifically requested clarification of the following statement from our proposal:

The AMA requested that the EPA “revise this discussion to make it clear that the evaluation of the longer-term limit is looking at whether additional hourly exceedances of the numeric portion of the NAAQS will occur rather than NAAQS exceedances.”

Response: We note AMA's support for our proposed approval. With respect to the commenter's request for clarification, the commenter appears to be confusing the term “NAAQS exceedance” with “NAAQS violation.” The hourly exceedance of the level of a NAAQS is the same as a NAAQS exceedance as used in our proposal but is different from a NAAQS violation. As explained in our proposal:

To restate, when we use the term “NAAQS exceedance” (both in our proposal and in this document), we refer to an hourly exceedance of the 75 ppb level, rather than to a NAAQS violation, which would occur only when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is greater than 75 ppb.

Comment: The NGOs noted that Arizona was subject to a March 18, 2016 “Finding of Failure to Submit,” and the EPA was therefore obligated to approve the SIP or promulgate a FIP if the SIP was not approved by April 18, 2018. They asserted that the SIP was not approved nor was a FIP in place by the deadline.

Response: We acknowledge that the EPA did not approve a SIP revision or promulgate a FIP for the Miami SO 2 NAA by April 18, 2018, as required under CAA 110(c)(1)(A). However, with this final action to approve the Miami SO 2 Plan, we are discharging our statutory obligation under CAA section 110(k)(2) to act on the SIP, and such approval terminates our FIP obligation under section 110(c)(1)(A) for the Miami SO 2 NAA.

Comment: The NGOs stated that the Miami, Arizona area had a design value of 105 ppb when designated nonattainment; whereas the 2014-2016 design value was 200 ppb, and the 2015-2017 preliminary design value was 221 ppb. The commenters asserted that, because attainment is determined by averaging over three years, the area will remain in nonattainment on the October 4, 2018 attainment deadline even if readings were 0.0 ppb from this point forward. On this basis they concluded that, even though the control measures may be operational by October 4, 2018, the State has already failed to demonstrate attainment by the statutory deadline.

Response: We disagree with this comment. We note that, contrary to the commenters' suggestion, the CAA does not require states with SO 2 nonattainment areas to factually “demonstrate attainment by the statutory deadline” in the SIPs they submit containing the control measures that will achieve attainment. Rather, sections 172 and 192 of the CAA require states to submit SIP revisions that “provide for attainment” of the SO 2 NAAQS by the attainment date. In our proposal, we described our interpretation of “provide for attainment” and the rationale for finding that the Miami SO 2 plan submitted by the State of Arizona does provide for attainment. 14 In particular, Arizona's submittal provides modeling-based evidence that establishes that the control measures required on the single source of emissions in the area are sufficient to yield air quality that attains the NAAQS by the attainment deadline.

The available monitoring data should not be interpreted as indicating that Arizona's SIP has failed to provide for timely attainment. The monitoring data cited by the commenter were collected before the full implementation of the measures in the Miami SO 2 plan, which occurred in 2018. 15 Therefore, these data are indicative of whether air quality met the standard prior to full implementation of the measures reflected in the modeling demonstration, but these data are not a reliable indicator of whether air quality, after implementation of all modeled relevant control measures, would be expected to meet the standard at the attainment deadline. In other words, these data are not indicative of the adequacy of the plan and its modeling demonstration to provide for NAAQS attainment. Instead, as the EPA explained in our 2014 SO 2 Guidance and in numerous proposed and final SIP notices implementing the SO 2 NAAQS, a key element of an approvable SIP is the required modeling demonstration showing that the remedial control measures and strategy are adequate to bring a previously or currently violating area into attainment. Given the form of the 2010 NAAQS as the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum SO 2 concentrations, it is often possible that the three-year period of monitored data will not reflect the actual air quality levels resulting from implementation of the newer remedial control measures implemented within that period. In such cases, as it is here, the more complete and representative analysis for informing action on a submitted SIP should focus on the results of newly implemented control measures required under the plan, rather than historical concentrations that do not reflect the results of the plan's required control measures. The former analysis explicitly addresses whether air quality will be attaining (as required) under the state's submitted plan, whereas the latter analysis may have little to no bearing on what will happen as a result of the plan. Therefore, in the context of reviewing the adequacy of those newer control measures to provide for newly attaining air quality under sections 172 and 192, we conclude that it is reasonable to focus on the modeling results that specifically account for those control measures and the resulting reductions in SO 2 emissions, rather than on monitored data that, in this case, do not represent air quality levels resulting from full implementation of the control measures in the Plan. In the Miami SO 2 Plan, Arizona's modeling shows that implementation of the measures included in the Plan result in air quality that attains the NAAQS.

Under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has failed to attain is a separate action from the review of an attainment demonstration SIP. The EPA's SIP review occurs under CAA sections 110(k), 172(c) and 192(a), while a determination of whether an SO 2 NAA has failed to attain is governed by CAA section 179(c)(1). Under section 110(k)(3), the EPA is required to approve a SIP submission that meets all applicable requirements of the CAA. For the reasons described in our proposal and elsewhere in this notice, we have concluded that the Miami SO 2 Plan meets all such requirements, including the requirement in 172(c) and 192(a) to provide for attainment by the attainment date. This is the determination that is the subject of today's final SIP approval action.

Separately, in a different action under section 179(c)(1) that is beyond the scope of today's final SIP approval action, the EPA must determine within six months of the attainment date whether an area has attained the NAAQS based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date. Accordingly, the EPA will in a separate action, analyze the pertinent information and determine whether the Miami SO 2 NAA attained the NAAQS by the attainment date in accordance with section 179(c)(1).

In response to the part of the comment related to change in ambient values, we note that the 2009-2011 design value used to designate the NAA was based on SO 2 data from the Miami Ridgeline monitor, which was the only SO 2 monitor in the NAA at that time. The 2015-2017 design value cited by the commenter was based on data from the Miami Jones Ranch Monitor, which was installed in 2013. Because of safety and infrastructure concerns, the Ridgeline monitor ceased operation on September 26, 2017, following EPA approval of the site's closure. 16 As shown in Table 1, during the years that both the Ridgeline and Jones Ranch monitors had valid design values (2015 and 2016), the design values for the Jones Ranch monitor were more than 50 ppb higher than the design values for the Miami Ridgeline monitor. The change in design value noted by the commenters reflects the more recent design value information provided by the Miami Jones Ranch monitor and appears to be more the result of monitoring at a different location rather than a significant worsening of air quality as implied by the commenter. Again, however, the EPA is not taking any final action today under CAA section 179(c) to determine whether the Miami area factually attained the NAAQS by the attainment date, and our discussion of the monitoring data from the Ridgeline and the Jones ranch monitors presented here is for informational purposes only.

Comment: The commenters noted that the EPA stated that it agreed with the State's placement of modeling receptors, which relied on an ambient air boundary consisting of the facility's physical fence line as well as several boundary segments with no fence that the State inspected and concluded steep topography precludes public access. However, the commenters asserted that “there is no EPA regulation or written policy stating that steep topography is not ambient air. Impacts in these areas should not be ignored in the modeling simulations, and thus, the State has not demonstrated that the proposed emission limit of 142.45 lb/hr provides for attainment of the SO 2 NAAQS.”

Response: Ambient air is defined as “that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access.”  17 The 2014 SO 2 Guidance, Appendix A, Section 5.2 states “[t]he model receptor grid is unique to the particular situation and depends on the size of the modeling domain, the number of modeled sources, and complexity of the terrain. Receptors should be placed in areas that are considered ambient air ( i.e., where the public generally has access) relative to a particular facility. . . .” The EPA policy on excluding areas from ambient air has been stated in a series of letters and memoranda. In a 1980 letter from Administrator Douglas Costle to Senator Jennings Randolph, 18 the EPA stated its policy that the exclusion from ambient air is available only for the atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers, based on a case-by-case review of individual situations to ensure that the public is adequately protected. This represents the EPA's current policy with regard to ambient air. As part of a demonstration that an exclusion is appropriate, a source should take steps to preclude the general public from accessing the property by relying on some type of physical barrier, such as a fence, wall, or a natural obstruction. 19 As a result, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that the EPA lacks a written policy that allows for steep topography to preclude public access to facility property. As described above, a natural obstruction, such as steep topography, may be considered to be part of an ambient air boundary, consistent with the regulatory definition of ambient air, if it is effective in precluding the general public from accessing the property and can be a basis for excluding such area for receptor placement in the modeling.

We note that the EPA is currently evaluating this ambient air policy to consider whether access to property by the general public may be effectively precluded or deterred, consistent with the existing regulatory definition of ambient air, by means other than a fence or other physical barriers. 20 Such a revision to our policy would not alter our finding that Arizona properly excluded receptors in areas owned or controlled by the source where steep topography precludes public access.

Comment: The NGOs commented that according to the spreadsheet from the docket  21 Freeport-McMoRan Miami Incorporated's (FMMI's) existing permit requires individual limits, on a pound per hour (lb/hr) basis, on the various SO  2 emitting processes. They asserted that our proposed action does not include a discussion as to why it is appropriate to now switch to a single facility-wide limit with a longer term ( i.e., 30-day averaging basis).

Response: First, we disagree with the commenter's characterization of “switching” from individual limits to a facility-wide limit, as it implies that these existing limits will either be replaced or cease to be applicable following the approval of the Miami SO 2 Plan. The permit limits listed in the spreadsheet cited by the commenter are found in Attachment C of FMMI's title V permit. 22 The limits are 820.00 lb/hr for the Acid Plant Tail Gas Stack, 312.00 lb/hr for the Vent Fume Stack, and 1288 lb/hr for all fugitives. 23 These existing limits were established under separate legal authority to meet separate regulatory requirements and will not be altered by the addition of the 142.45 lb/hr limit (30-day rolling average) that applies to the entire facility under Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 13, Section R18-2-C1302 (“Rule C1302”). 24

Second, we note that these existing individual limits were not in the SIP and were not intended to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The appropriateness of the facility-wide, 30-day rolling emission limit for attainment of the NAAQS must be evaluated based upon the legal requirements and guidance associated with implementation of the 1-hr SO 2 NAAQS. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, our proposal did explain why it is appropriate to use both a facility-wide limit and a longer-term limit in this case. 25 As explained in the proposal, the State provided an analysis to show that due to the batch nature of the smelting process at the Miami Smelter, the emissions from the various units (“sources”) at the facility are independent of one another and therefore do not peak at the same time. The collection of future maximum potential SO 2 emission rates for each source represents a conservative estimate of the worst-case emission distribution at the smelter. Additionally, ADEQ submitted an analysis that demonstrates that variations in the location of peak emissions among sources will not affect attainment, and a facility-wide emissions limit is sufficiently protective.

Comment: The commenters asserted that the adjustment factor used to develop the emission limit for the Miami Smelter (0.37) indicates that its operation is much more variable than are emissions at electric generating units (EGUs) and that the EPA's 2014 SO 2 Guidance was developed based on empirical evidence to assess the variability of the operation of EGUs, not sulfuric acid plants. They argued that this greater variability means that there is much higher probability that any given hour is above the critical emission value (CEV) for this sulfuric acid plant relative to the EGUs cited in the 2014 SO 2 Guidance. They asserted that there was no discussion of the estimated percentage of time that the hourly emissions are expected to be above the CEV and that the EPA or the State, at a minimum, should provide some discussion on expected emissions and assess the variability in terms of sulfuric acid plants rather than EGUs.

Response: We agree that emissions at the Miami Smelter are more variable than for EGUs. The adjustment factor for the Miami Smelter was 0.37 compared to the national average adjustment factors ( i.e., 0.63-0.79) estimated for EGUs and listed in Table 1 of Appendix D of the 2014 SO 2 Guidance. The approach outlined in the 2014 SO 2 Guidance accounts for whatever degree of variability a source has, because the adjustment factor is designed to reflect the source's own emission distribution and variability. The higher degree of adjustment for the Miami Smelter compared to the EGUs means that the longer-term emission limit for the smelter is lowered further to ensure that hourly emissions exceeding the CEV are a rare occurrence. Indeed, the protocol given in the 2014 SO 2 Guidance is designed to provide for long-term average emission levels above the long-term average limit to be as rare as 1-hour emission levels above the CEV, which for the Miami Smelter necessitates more adjustment than is necessary for most EGUs. Therefore, we disagree with the commenters that this increased variability means there is a higher probability that any given hour is above the CEV compared to the sources envisioned by the 2014 SO 2 Guidance. As described in our proposal, the State used hourly SO 2 data collected using continuous emission monitors from May 2013 to October 2014, adjusted to account for Miami Smelter's upgrades and increased production capacity, as a representative emission distribution for the smelter's future configuration. 26 Appendix C to the Miami SO 2 Plan, ”Modeling Technical Support Document for the Miami Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Nonattainment Area” (“Modeling TSD”), Table 8-7 specifies this representative emission distribution includes 60 hours above the CEV, which amounts to 0.5 percent of operating hours. The EPA's 2014 SO 2 Guidance states that “if above the critical emission value are a rare occurrence at a source, these periods would be unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, insofar as they would be very unlikely to occur repeatedly at the times when the meteorology is conducive for high ambient concentrations of SO 2 .”  27 We conclude that the limit for the Miami Smelter, which we expect to result in no more than 0.5 percent of hours exceeding the CEV, qualifies as assuring that such occasions of elevated emissions will be sufficiently rare to provide for attainment, consistent with EPA guidance.

Comment: The NGOs argued that there should be a clear indication of whether or not there were hours of non-operation ( i.e., zero emissions) for each of the emission units factored into the adjustment factor calculation and whether non-operation will be counted towards compliance. They noted that the 2014 SO 2 Guidance calls for the calculations to be made only during hours of operation and asserted that it was not clear how the State determined the 0.37 adjustment factor and how compliance will be ensured with respect to non-operation.

Response: We agree with the commenter that it should be clear how hours of non-operation were accounted for in developing the adjustment factor and how they will be used in determining compliance. Regarding the development of the adjustment factor, we have included information in the docket that displays the facility emission data used by the State in determining the 0.37 adjustment factor. 28 This adjustment factor represents a ratio of the 99th percentile of 30-day average emissions relative to the 99th percentile of 1-hour average emissions. To determine the 99th percentile of the 1-hour average emissions, the State only considered hours corresponding to periods of operation. To determine the 99th percentile of the 30-day average emission values the State used a running hourly mean of the most recent 720 hours that corresponded to periods of operation. As seen in this spreadsheet, periods of zero emissions that correspond to nonoperation were removed from consideration in developing the adjustment factor.

We note that there was a period during June 16-17, 2015, in which 39 hours of zero emissions were included in the set of emission data used in developing the adjustment factor. Additional correspondence between the EPA, ADEQ and FMMI provided further details indicating that while no emissions occurred, this period of time corresponds to a period of operation as defined in Rule C1302 subsection (B)(6). 29 Specifically, FMMI indicated the electric furnace was receiving power during this period, and that electric furnace temperature was steadily increasing. In addition, the vent fume stack fan was also operating and ventilating during this period. FMMI asserts that during this 39-hour period, the electric furnace was operating and smelting, but that crust formation prevented SO 2 emissions from the electric furnace until temperature was sufficient to melt the crust. Operating records provided by FMMI support these details and indicate that this 39-hour period represents initial startup after a period of nonoperation. 30 Based on this information, we consider the inclusion of this 39-hour period appropriate because conditions at the facility were consistent with periods of operation that generated no emissions.

With respect to the compliance determination, we note that Rule C1302 subsection (F)(1) requires a compliance demonstration for each “operating day.” Subsection (B)(6) of Rule C1302 defines “operating day” as any calendar day in which any of the following occurs:

a. Concentrate is smelted in the Electric furnace or IsaSmelt furnace;

b. Copper or sulfur bearing materials are processed in the converters;

c. Blister or scrap copper is processed in the anode furnaces or mold vessel;

d. Molten metal, including slag, matte or blister copper, is transferred between vessels;

e. Molten metal is cast into molds, anodes, or other intermediate or final products;

f. Power is provided to the electric furnace to make or maintain a molten bath; or

g. The anode furnace is heated to make or maintain a molten bath.

In this rule, compliance with the rolling 30-day emission limit is calculated by identifying the days during which one or more of the relevant units was actually operating, and at the end of each operating day computing average emissions over the most recent 30 operating days. The emissions from those 30 days are totaled and then divided by 720 (30 days × 24 hours). The approach of determining compliance on the basis of emissions only during operating days and defining “operating day” as a day with any operation is consistent with the recommendation in the 2014 SO 2 Guidance. 31 On the other hand, the determination of compliance on a 720-hour basis, inherently averaging in the zero emission values of non-operating hours during an operating day, is not consistent with the recommendation in the 2014 SO 2 Guidance that hours without operation be excluded from the compliance determination. 32

The EPA has evaluated the significance of using this compliance determination approach for this facility as compared to a method that excludes all non-operating hours. 33 In the case of the Miami Smelter, the use of data only from operating days, as opposed to using data from all calendar days, substantially limits the inclusion of non-operating hours. The nature of the process at the Miami Smelter involves relatively continuous operation, so that the number of non-operating hours within operating days is minimal. For example, the emission data used to derive the adjustment factor, representing 12,264 hours, include only 224 non-operating hours, less than 2 percent of the hours. The inclusion of these non-operating hours has a negligible impact on the rolling average, especially at peak values for this facility. For example, the highest 30-operating day average calculated from the dataset is 105.9 lb/hr when non-operating hours are excluded compared to 105.2 lb/hr when non-operating hours are included. Both are well below the facility-wide 30-day emission limit of 142.45 lb/hr. Also, among the days represented in the top 10 percent of 30-day averages, only 0.5 percent of the hours are non-operating hours. As the compliance methodology for the Miami Smelter is based on an operating day, consistent with the 2014 SO 2 Guidance, and the smelter operates continuously year-round, these non-operating hours remain inconsequential in determining compliance with the 30-day limit. Therefore, we conclude that this deviation from guidance will have minimal impact and does not prevent this Miami SO 2 Plan from providing for attainment.

The 2014 SO 2 Guidance also recommends that the approach used to calculate the adjustment factor should be consistent with the approach used to determine compliance with the longer-term limit. 34 As described above, ADEQ computed the 99th percentile of the 30-day average emission values used in the development of the longer-term limit as a 720-rolling hourly average, whereas compliance is determined using a 30-operating day average. We recalculated the adjustment factor and resulting emission limit using the compliance methodology outlined in Rule C1302 and found the difference was small: The adjustment factor and 30-day limit are 0.368 and 141.80 lb/hr when calculated using a 30-operating day average compared to 0.370 and 142.45 lb/hr when calculated as a 720-hour running mean, a 0.4 percent difference. We believe this difference is negligible and the conservatism built into the State's modeling adequately demonstrates that the longer-term emission limit in Rule C1302 provides for attainment. The State's modeling predicts a design value of 194.1 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ), whereas the standard is 196.4 μg/m 3 (75 ppb), providing room for this slightly higher limit in Rule C1302.

Comment: The NGOs requested that the EPA take a fresh look at this rulemaking and issue a revised proposal for public notice and comment.

Response: We have reexamined our proposed rulemaking and have concluded that no revised notice of proposed rulemaking is warranted. For the reasons described in our proposal and in the preceding responses to comments, we find that the Miami SO 2 Plan meets all applicable requirements under the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, we are finalizing our approval of the Miami SO 2 Plan.

The EPA is approving the Miami SO 2 Plan, which includes Arizona's attainment demonstration for the Miami SO 2 NAA and addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, base-year and projected emission inventories, new source review, enforceable emissions limits and control measures, and contingency measures. For the reasons described in our proposal and the related concurrence documents, 35 the EPA is also approving the BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Approach as an alternative model to represent emissions from Miami Smelter roofline in the Miami SO 2 Plan under 40 CFR 51.112(a)(2). The EPA determines that the Miami SO 2 Plan meets applicable requirements of sections 110, 172, 191 and 192 of the CAA for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0494 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 13, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0494, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of November 27, 2017 (82 FR 56017) (FRL-9968-55), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7E8601) by Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.544 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide methoxyfenozide, in or on tea, dried at 20 parts per million (ppm) and tea, instant at 20 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow Agrosciences, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

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

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

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Many of the available short-term or subchronic toxicity studies on methoxyfenozide showed little or no toxicity. The main target organs identified from the toxicity studies in the rat and dog were the liver, thyroid, and red blood cells (RBCs). The most consistent findings across species and studies were transiently decreased RBC parameters and increased liver, thyroid, adrenal, and spleen weights. Increases in thyroid and adrenal weights were observed in the rat chronic oral study. Thyroid weights were also increased in the dog following chronic exposure. However, no accompanying histopathology was observed.

Acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in the rat did not show evidence of potential neurotoxicity. In the acute study, decreased hindlimb grip strength on Day 0 was reported in males. This finding was only observed at the limit dose in males and was not observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study and was therefore not considered evidence of neurotoxicity. No clinical signs of neurotoxicity or neurohistopathology were observed in other guideline studies.

No maternal or developmental effects were observed in either the rat or rabbit oral developmental toxicity studies. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, parental effects were limited to increased liver weight and microscopic periportal hypertrophy. No offspring or reproductive toxicity was observed. In a 28-day dietary immunotoxicity study in the rat, no immunotoxicity was observed, and the only observed effect was increased liver weight.

There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat dietary 24-month chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study or the mouse dietary 18-month carcinogenicity study. No mutagenic or clastogenic potential was observed in the battery of genotoxicity studies on methoxyfenozide. Based on these findings, methoxyfenozide is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by methoxyfenozide as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, “Methoxyfenozide. Human Health Draft Risk Assessment for Registration Review and New Use Risk Assessment to Support the Registration of Proposed Use on Chives, and Crop Group Expansions for Stone Fruit and Tree Nuts” at pp. 42-47 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0591.

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

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

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to methoxyfenozide, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing methoxyfenozide tolerances in 40 CFR 180.544. EPA assessed dietary exposures from methoxyfenozide in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for methoxyfenozide; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (100%CT), and default processing factors for most processed commodities that do not have individual tolerances; the only exception being a processing factor for orange juice based on a processing study.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that methoxyfenozide does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for methoxyfenozide. Tolerance level residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for methoxyfenozide in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of methoxyfenozide. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing- pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) for surface water, along with the Screening Concentration In GROund Water (SCI-GROW) model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models for groundwater, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of methoxyfenozide for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 7.57 ppb for surface water and 214 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 214 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Methoxyfenozide is currently registered for use on ornamentals in and around home gardens, which could result in residential exposures. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handlers were assessed for potential short-term inhalation exposures from mixing, loading, and applying methoxyfenozide. A quantitative dermal assessment for residential handlers was not conducted since there is no systemic toxicity associated with dermal exposures to methoxyfenozide. Adult post-application exposures were not quantitatively assessed since no dermal hazard was identified for methoxyfenozide and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. Furthermore, the inhalation exposure assessment performed for residential handlers is representative of worse case inhalation exposures and is considered protective for post-application inhalation exposure scenarios.

Post-application oral exposure to children is not expected since the extent to which young children engage in activities associated with areas where treated ornamentals are grown (or utilize these areas for prolonged periods of play) is low. Therefore, an incidental oral post-application exposure assessment was not conducted. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/framework-assessing-non-occupational-non-dietary.

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

EPA has not found methoxyfenozide to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and methoxyfenozide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that methoxyfenozide does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of the developing fetus or offspring, based on the developmental and reproductive toxicity study results for methoxyfenozide. No developmental toxicity was observed in either the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies, and there was no evidence of offspring or reproductive toxicity in the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for methoxyfenozide is complete.

ii. There is no indication that methoxyfenozide is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that methoxyfenozide results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to methoxyfenozide in drinking water. Based on the discussion in Unit III.C.3, regarding residential use patterns, EPA does not expect residential uses of methoxyfenozide to result in post-application exposure of children or incidental oral exposures of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by methoxyfenozide.

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

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, methoxyfenozide is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to methoxyfenozide from food and water will utilize 84% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of methoxyfenozide result in risk estimates (MOEs > 100) which are not of concern.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Methoxyfenozide is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to methoxyfenozide.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 530. Because EPA's level of concern for methoxyfenozide is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

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

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

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

Adequate enforcement methodologies, using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), with either tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS), or ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV) or the multiresidue QuEChERS method, combined with an HPLC-MS/MS, are available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for methoxyfenozide in or on tea.

EPA received three comments, only one of which was specific to the petition for methoxyfenozide tolerances. The specific comment opposed “allowing such high residues” but did not provide any information relevant to the safety of the pesticide. The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops; however, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of methoxyfenozide, in or on imported tea, dried at 20 ppm and tea, instant at 20 ppm.

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: The private angling component, and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422; April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational ACL (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. The recreational seasonal closures are projected from the component annual catch targets (ACTs). Using ACTS to project the recreational season closures reduces the likelihood of the harvest exceeding the component quotas and the total recreational ACL. The current private angling and for-hire component ACTs are 20 percent below the component quotas.

On March 5, 2019, NMFS published a final rule implementing two framework actions that modify the red snapper ACLs (quotas) and ACTs (84 FR 2828). This rule, which will be effective on April 4, 2019, increased the red snapper quotas and decreased the Federal for-hire component's red snapper ACT for 2019 to 9 percent below the for-hire component quota.

Therefore, the applicable regulations will be updated and the 2019 total recreational quota for red snapper in the Gulf EEZ will be 7.399 million lb (3.356 million kg) (50 CFR 622.39(2)(i)). This quota is allocated 57.7 percent to the private angling component and 42.3 percent to the Federal for-hire component. For the private angling component, the 2019 quota will be 4.269 million lb (1.936 million kg), and the 2019 ACT will be 3.415 million lb (1.549 million kg) (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(C)). For the Federal for-hire component, the 2019 quota will be 3.130 million lb (1.420 million kg), and the 2019 ACT will be 2.848 million lb (1.292 million kg) (50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(iii)(B)). All weights given are in round weight.

For the private angling component, NMFS has issued EFPs that allow each Gulf state (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) to set the season for red snapper that are landed from state and Federal waters in that state during 2018 and 2019. The EFPs allocate a portion of the private angling quota to each state, and each state is required under the terms and conditions of the EFPs to constrain landings to its allocation. The combined allocations equal the private angling component quota.

To accommodate the EFPs, the private angling season in federal waters will be closed all year, but private anglers with the appropriate state licenses are exempt from regulations at 50 CFR 622.34(b) (recreational season closure for red snapper) and 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) (private angler component in-season closure) if these anglers hold the appropriate state fishing permits and are landing red snapper in a participating state during the state's open season. Therefore, there will be no Federal season for the private angling component in 2019, and this closure notification will take effect at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2019.

The Gulf states will establish seasons during which red snapper caught in state and Federal waters can be landed. States will monitor red snapper landings and close their respective fishing seasons if the state's assigned quota is reached or projected to be reached. Private anglers should consult the regulations for the Gulf state where they wish to land red snapper to determine state season dates and landing requirements.

The 2019 red snapper Federal for-hire fishing season has been determined to be 62 days based on NMFS' projection of the date landings are expected to reach the component ACT. For details about the calculation of the projection for 2019, see https://www.fisheries.noaa .gov/southeast/recreational-fishing/gulf-mexico-recreational-red-snapper-management. Therefore, the 2019 Federal recreational season for the Federal for-hire component will begin at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 1, 2019, and close at 12:01 a.m., local time, August 2, 2019.

On and after the effective date of the Federal for-hire component closure, the bag and possession limits for red snapper for Federal for-hire vessels are zero. When either the Federal for-hire component or entire recreational sector is closed, these bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf onboard a vessel for which a valid Federal for-hire permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.

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

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(q)(2)(i) and (ii) 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 is based on the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the private angling and Federal for-hire components for the red snapper recreational sector constitute good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the recreational red snapper ACLs and ACTs, and the rule implementing the requirement to close the recreational components when the ACTs are projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closures.

Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because it would require time and many for-hire operations book trips for clients in advance and need as much advance notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their business plans to account for the fishing season.

Background

The bluefish fishery is jointly managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission under the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP requires the specification of the acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch targets (ACT), commercial quotas, recreational harvest limit, and other management measures, for up to three years at a time. This action implements final 2019 specifications for the bluefish fishery, which are very similar to 2018. The bluefish stock will undergo an operational assessment in mid-2019 that is designed to incorporate updated Marine Recreational Information Program information. It is expected that the 2020 specifications will be developed using this assessment.

The proposed rule for this action published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2018 (83 FR 66234), and public comments were accepted through January 10, 2019. Additional background information regarding the development of these specifications was provided in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

This action implements the 2019 Atlantic bluefish specifications (Table 1), as outlined in the proposed rule. Because the most recent data update indicated that the bluefish stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, the 2019 specifications are very similar to 2018, with only minor adjustments to the final commercial quota and recreational harvest limit to account for the most recent full year of recreational catch data (2017), and an adjusted sector transfer. All other management measures, including the recreational possession limit of 15 fish per person, remain unchanged. For more information on the Council's recommendations and decisionmaking process, please see the proposed rule (83 FR 66234).

Table 2 provides the commercial fishery state allocations for 2019 based on the final 2019 coast-wide commercial quota and the allocated percentages defined in the FMP. No states exceeded their state allocated quota in 2018; therefore, no accountability measures need to be implemented for the 2019 fishing year.

The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 10, 2019. One comment received from the public claimed rampant overfishing in the bluefish fishery is occurring due to widespread corruption and commercial profiteering. However, this commenter presented no rationale or evidence supporting these claims, and the most recent assessment updates indicate that the bluefish stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. No changes to the proposed specifications were made as a result of this comment.

There are no changes from the proposed rule.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.

This action does not contain a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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. No comments were received regarding this certification, and the initial certification remains unchanged. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of effectiveness period for this rule, to ensure that the final specifications are in place as close as practicable to the start of the 2019 Atlantic bluefish fishing year, which began on January 1, 2019. This action establishes the final specifications ( i.e., annual catch limits) for the bluefish fishery for the 2019 fishing year. A delay in effectiveness well beyond the start of the 2019 fishing year would be contrary to the public interest, as it could create confusion in the commercial bluefish industry.

This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. The proposed rule was prepared and published in December 2018, and the public comment period ended on January 10, 2019. The partial Federal government shutdown prevented any work on this action from December 22, 2018, through January 25, 2019. We had expected to prepare and publish this final rule in January but were unable to do so because of the shutdown. A 30-day delay in effectiveness would only prolong the amount of time the bluefish fishery is forced to function in the 2019 fishing year without established specifications, which is contrary to the public interest.

Furthermore, regulated parties do not require any additional time to come into compliance with this rule, and thus, a 30-day delay does not provide any benefit. Unlike actions that require an adjustment period to comply with new rules, bluefish fishery participants will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these status quo management measures. Rather, complying with this final rule simply means adhering to the catch limits and management measures set for bluefish fishing year 2019. Therefore, there would be no benefit to delaying the implementation of these specifications.

For these reasons, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would be contrary to the public interest, and is therefore waived. As a result, there is good cause to implement these specifications on March 12, 2019.

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

The A season allowance of the 2019 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 3,522 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018) and inseason adjustment (84 FR 33, January 4, 2019).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2019 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is necessary to account for the incidental catch in other anticipated fisheries. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 3,000 mt and is setting aside the remaining 522 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 6, 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.