Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Rulemaking Procedure III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0070 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0070.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0070 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 and does not include other aspects of the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design. The NRC is using the direct final rule procedure to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on July 29, 2019. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by June 14, 2019, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register . Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section [218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on October 19, 2000, that approved the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 (65 FR 62581).

On September 18, 2018, NAC International submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1015. Amendment No. 7 revises the surveillance requirements for technical specifications A3.1.6.1 and A3.1.6.2 to ensure that adequate monitoring of the concrete cask heat removal system is performed. Amendment No. 7 also revises the basis for technical specification A3.1.6 to clarify that the surveillance requirements for technical specification A3.1.6 require a minimum of two outlet air temperature measurements to provide an average outlet temperature.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety review of the proposed certificate of compliance amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed certificate of compliance amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in the design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 7 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. There will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System listing in § 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised certificate of compliance and technical specifications. The revised technical specifications are identified in the preliminary safety analysis report.

The amended NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 under § 72.214.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, and the Category “NRC” does not confer regulatory authority on the State, the State may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by means consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015. Amendment No. 7 revises the surveillance requirements for technical specifications A3.1.6.1 and A3.1.6.2 to ensure that adequate monitoring of the concrete cask heat removal system is performed. Amendment No. 7 also revises the basis for technical specification A3.1.6 to clarify that the surveillance requirements for technical specification A3.1.6 require a minimum of two outlet air temperature measurements to provide an average outlet temperature.

This direct final rule amends the entry for the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. The changes proposed in Amendment No. 7 are needed to specify the minimum number of outlet air temperature measurement required to ensure adequate heat removal and consistency with other NAC International storage systems, and to minimize the potential for human error when more than one NAC International system is used at an independent spent fuel storage installation. Specifically, Amendment No. 7 revises the surveillance requirements for technical specifications A3.1.6.1 and A3.1.6.2 to ensure that adequate monitoring of the concrete cask heat removal system is performed. Amendment No. 7 also revises the basis for technical specification A3.1.6 to clarify that the surveillance requirements for technical specification A3.1.6 require a minimum of two outlet air temperature measurements to provide an average outlet temperature.

On July 18,1990, the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC (55 FR 29181). The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 7 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

The NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a change in design or fabrication of the cask.

Therefore, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 7 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Thus, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 7 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 7 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same as, or more likely greater than, the proposed action.

Approval of Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment No. 7,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only part 50 and part 52 licensees authorized to possess or operate nuclear power plant reactors under that part, independent spent fuel storage installation general licensees using the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, and NAC International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

On July 18, 1990, the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC (55 FR 29181). Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compliance, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On October 19, 2000, the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 (65 FR 62581).

On September 18, 2018, NAC International submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 by adding Amendment No. 7. NAC International submitted this application to amend the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 7 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 7 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises the listing in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks,” for Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System. The revision changes the surveillance requirements for technical specifications A3.1.6.1 and A3.1.6.2 to ensure that adequate monitoring of the concrete cask heat removal system is performed, and also revises the basis for technical specification A3.1.6 to clarify that the surveillance requirements for technical specification A3.1.6 require a minimum of two outlet air temperature measurements to provide an average outlet temperature.

Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System was initiated by NAC International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 7 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 7. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC International NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 6 continues to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 7, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2019-0070. The Federal Rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2019-0070); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

The S.A.F.E. Act mandates a nationwide licensing and registration system for residential mortgage loan originators. 1 The S.A.F.E. Act requires residential mortgage loan originators employed by depository institutions, subsidiaries that are owned and controlled by a depository institution and regulated by a federal banking agency, and institutions regulated by the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, obtain a unique identifier, and maintain such registration. Originally, the federal registration requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act were implemented through a coordinated rulemaking of the federal banking agencies and the FCA, the agencies with authority over the federal registration requirements under the S.A.F.E. Act (the “federal registry agencies”). 2 The Board incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act in its Regulation H, 12 CFR part 208, subpart I, and Regulation K, 12 CFR 211.24(k).

Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act amended a number of consumer financial protection laws, including the S.A.F.E. Act. 3 The Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for the S.A.F.E. Act from the federal registry agencies to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. 4 In connection with the transfer of rulemaking authority for the S.A.F.E. Act to the Bureau, the Bureau published an interim final rule to incorporate the S.A.F.E. Act into its own Regulations G and H, 12 CFR parts 1007 and 1008 (Bureau Interim Final Rule). 5 In April 2016, the Bureau finalized the Bureau Interim Final Rule as part of a larger initiative of finalizing interim final rules. 6 The Bureau's regulations that incorporate the S.A.F.E. Act substantially duplicate the federal registry agencies' coordinated rules and cover the entities that were previously subject to the federal registry agencies' rules. In September 2018, the Board published a proposal to repeal its regulations that incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act (Proposed Rule). 7

The Board received two comments on the Proposed Rule. One commenter supported the Proposed Rule, while the other urged the Board to retain the regulations that it proposed to repeal. For reasons discussed below, the Board is finalizing the repeal of its regulations that incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act as proposed.

The commenter that supported the Proposed Rule stated that the registration of mortgage loan originators is burdensome for a small community bank that originates only a handful of mortgage loans each year. The Board notes that, although it is repealing its regulations that incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act, the statutory requirement to register mortgage loan originators still exists in the S.A.F.E. Act, as incorporated into the Bureau's regulations.

The commenter that opposed the Proposed Rule urged the Board to retain its regulations that incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act in order to retain the ability to issue any S.A.F.E. Act rules in the future. The Board's authority to issue rules, however, is determined by statute. If Congress were to amend the S.A.F.E. Act in the future to restore rulemaking authority to the Board, the Board could adopt rules under that authority at that time. Accordingly, the Board is finalizing the repeal of its regulations that incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act as proposed.

An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was included in the proposal in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In the IRFA, the Board requested comment on the effect of the Proposed Rule on small entities and on any significant alternatives that would reduce the regulatory burden on small entities. The Board did not receive any comments. The RFA requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with section 3(a) of the RFA, the Board has reviewed the final regulation. Based on its analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the Board certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The final rule is intended to reflect Congress's transfer of rulemaking authority for the S.A.F.E. Act from the Board to the Bureau by repealing the Board's regulations that incorporated the S.A.F.E. Act. The repeal does not impose any recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements on any entities. Any entity that is currently covered by the S.A.F.E. Act is subject to the rules issued by the Bureau, located in 12 CFR part 1007 and 1008. Accordingly, the Board does not expect this final rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the rule under the authority delegated to the Federal Reserve by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The final rule contains no collections of information under to the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Accordingly, there is no paperwork burden associated with the final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The objective of this final notice is to inform the public of our response to the comments submitted to us regarding our request to identify regulations that they considered burdensome, ineffective, duplicative, or not based on law.

On May 18, 2017, we published a document in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on our regulations that may duplicate other requirements, are ineffective, are not based on law, or impose burdens that are greater than the benefits received. 1 We received letters from Farm Credit East, ACA; Capital Farm Credit, ACA; CoBank, ACB; the Farm Credit Council; and the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. The letters commented on regulations concerning: Governance, lending, capital, investments, borrower rights and other FCA regulations and guidance. In addition, the Institute for Policy Integrity encouraged FCA to stay focused on its mandate to identify outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, or net costly regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification and not to instead prioritize recently promulgated and overwhelmingly cost-benefit justified rules identified by industry commenters.

This document discusses the comments raised about FCA regulations and FCA activities. Many of the comments concern changes that we cannot implement because they are inconsistent with the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), safety and soundness, and/or other FCA guidance or position. Some comments raise issues that are the subject of existing regulatory projects scheduled for consideration by FCA as set forth in our 2019 Regulatory Projects Plan, which is available on the FCA website, and those issues will be addressed in the planned regulatory projects. In other cases, commenters identify issues that need further evaluation before we can consider whether changes are appropriate.

Comment: Given the strong financial performance and credit quality of many institutions, the agency should consider lengthening the time between exams for highly rated institutions. This would not only reduce costs at the institution level, but also allow FCA to better leverage its own resources as well as reduce its own costs.

FCA Response: We cannot make the recommended change because it conflicts with statute. Section 5.19 of the Act requires that “except for Federal land bank associations, each institution of the System shall be examined by Farm Credit Administration examiners at such times as the Board may determine, but in no event less than once during each 18-month period.” Therefore, we cannot extend the time between examinations to longer than 18 months. However, we would like to note that despite the mandated examination cycle, we very much do leverage our resources, as suggested in the comment. We do this through our risk-based examination approach, wherein resources are allocated based on an institution's risk profile, and our use of off-site, electronic data throughout the examination process.

Comment: We encourage the agency to reconsider the exceptions to “E-Sign” notifications, and in particular those in Subpart D of part 617. We note that E-Sign notifications of adverse credit decisions are permitted under ECOA regulations.

FCA Response: The FCA E-Sign Regulations comply with Public Law 106-229—Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. This law has not changed since we published the FCA's E-Sign Regulations; therefore, we are unable to make any revisions.

Comment: Section 611.220(a)(1) currently precludes an “outside” director from serving on the board of an FCA chartered Service Corporation. We believe this provision is more restrictive than is required by the Act (which, as you know, only requires a bank or association to have one outside director). As long as the prospective bank or association director candidate is not a director of another institution at the time of his selection, the Act's requirement is satisfied.

Additionally, the arbitrary prohibition on outside directors serving on service corporations is contrary to the spirit of the Act (creating a “second class” of directors), and counterproductive in terms of keeping qualified directors from serving on service corporation boards.

FCA Response: The comment is seeking to allow an outside director to simultaneously serve on two boards of directors—a System institution and a service corporation. We cannot make the recommended change because it conflicts with statute. Section 1.4 of the Act requires that “at least one member shall be elected by the other directors, which member shall not be a director, officer, employee, or stockholder of a System institution.” Section 4.27 of the Act provides that a service organization chartered by FCA is a Farm Credit System institution. We also believe that independence of the outside director is critical. We note that some service corporations are jointly owned by several System institutions, and service on the service corporation board could impair the independence of the outside director of the bank or association.

Comment: Eliminate the regulatory approval process for formation of UBEs pursuant to § 611.1155 and address compliance through the examination process.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. The UBE rule includes a notice-only provision in § 611.1154 to simplify the process and avoid unnecessary administrative burdens and costs when investing in UBEs whose activities we have experience in overseeing. For investments in any other UBEs, we continue to believe that it is prudent to have System institutions get our pre-approval to avoid the burden and cost associated with reversing investments that we later deem to be inappropriate, unsafe or unsound, or contrary to law through the examination process. FCA will, however, consider whether additional categories of UBE investments could be included in the notice-only provisions to reduce burden on System institutions.

Comment: Farm Credit may currently finance “farm related businesses” as eligible entities in the agriculture sector, and should also be permitted to finance related businesses which support the commercial fishing industry. Commercial fishing is the economic backbone of many rural communities in some parts of the nation, and producers and harvesters of seafood are themselves very dependent on many types of infrastructure for their long-term viability. FCA regulations that address “related businesses” should be modified to match overall lending authorities (for Farmers, Ranchers and Aquatic Producers and Harvesters) so that financing for “fishing related businesses” is specifically permitted.

FCA Response: We responded to this comment in past Regulatory Burden Notices. Our latest response was “[w]ith respect to aquatic-related services, sections 1.9(2), 1.11(c)(1), and 2.4(a)(3) of the Act authorize title I and II System lenders to extend credit to businesses that furnish farm-related services to farmers and ranchers directly related to their on-farm operation needs. The Act does not reference financing businesses that furnish aquatic-related services to aquatic producers and harvesters. We are closely following this topic.”  2 Although our position on this issue remains unchanged, we continue to follow any interest or developments on this topic.

Comment: Modify § 614.4120 to allow System banks and individual OFI customers to develop financing agreements that are independent of the Agricultural Credit Association financing structure and allows them to have a general financing agreement that meets the unique needs and varying organizational structures of OFIs. Additionally, § 614.4130(b) should be modified to allow for the delivery to the FCA of all documents related to the GFA within 30 days of execution.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. FCA regulation 614.4120 requires the board of directors of each System bank to adopt policies and procedures governing the making of direct loans for direct lender associations and OFIs. While the term general financing agreement is the same term used for both direct lending associations and OFIs, the regulations do not require that they be the same or similar, only that the adopted policies and procedures prescribe lending policies and loan underwriting standards that are consistent with sound financial and credit practices.

The request in the comment to increase the document delivery deadline to 30 days lacks any justification or support. The deadline in § 614.4130(b) currently is 10 business days after execution of the documents. The need for the requested change is not readily apparent, especially given that the documents could easily be submitted to FCA electronically. Nonetheless, while we are not making any change at this time, we may consider the request as part of a future regulatory project.

Comment: Section 614.4150 does not specifically direct institutions to annually request updated financial information from customers. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a requirement from the Office of Examination. This issue dates back to the credit crisis of the 1980s. Hopefully, we are past the time when this requirement is appropriate on any kind of an “across the board” basis.

FCA Response: We agree with the comment that an “across the board” basis for updating financial information is not appropriate. In fact, we took this position in 1997 when we removed the requirement for annual updating of financial information from the regulations. Instead, current regulations require that System institution boards and management adopt written policies and procedures that set the standards for updating borrower financial information. These standards, along with their implementation, are then the basis for evaluating how well the board and management is managing the institution.

We further address this issue in an Informational Memorandum dated, March 29, 2011, Loan Underwriting Standards—Borrower Financial Information. In this memorandum, we convey our expectations regarding the collection of borrower financial information and the impact of this information on loan underwriting standards. This Informational Memorandum is available on our website, www.fca.gov, under the `Laws and regulations' heading.

Comment: The requirements for evidencing an independent credit judgement by a purchaser of a loan participation from another System institution are unduly burdensome. Of course, each institution needs to be accountable for the loans, including purchases of participations, in their portfolio. Some form of simplified credit summary, or other analysis by a credit officer of the purchasing institution should be adequate to satisfy the requirements for an independent decision.

FCA Response: This issue was thoroughly studied when we finalized this regulation, and our analysis has not changed. 3 In fact, one of the points we made in the preamble was that “Section 614.4325(e) does not require the participating institution to prepare a lengthy analysis or to compile separate documentation from the originating or lead lender. However, § 614.4325(e) requires the purchasing institution to perform an objective, independent, and thorough analysis when it makes a loan decision.” An institution cannot delegate its independent credit decision. However, we continue to believe that this regulation provides flexibility for an institution to streamline the decision-making process and documentation of the decision, while ensuring that it fulfills its duty to protect institution assets.

Comment: We again urge FCA to reconsider its prohibition on the purchase of whole loans by System institutions. Several years ago, FCA took the step to recognize the purchase of 100% participations in loans. Allowing System institutions to purchase whole loans would be of real benefit to farmers and ranchers in their financial planning, without increasing the credit exposure to the System over that created by the purchase of participations.

FCA Response: We plan to address this issue in part through a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding those portions of commercial bank loans with unconditional guarantees by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Depending upon the outcome of that regulatory project, those transactions may be considered investments due to the way in which they are offered for sale and resale.

For whole loans that cannot be considered investments, we are not considering a change. Section 614.4325(b) prohibits a FCS institution from purchasing any interest in a loan from an institution that is not a FCS institution except to pool or securitize loans, purchase a participation interest under its lending authority and purchase loans from the FDIC.

Comment: FCA Regulation § 614.4595 requires the banks to receive written approval from the OFI before publicly disclosing its name, address, and internet address. It also requires a bank to adopt and maintain policies and procedures relating to OFI public disclosures. This requirement is unnecessary, excessively prescriptive, not required in law and burdens banks to maintain a policy that detracts from meaningful board oversight. Disclosure of name, address and internet address is not a regulatory matter and it is better left to the banks and OFIs to decide within the lending relationship.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. The regulation provides that a Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank may disclose to members of the public the name, address, telephone number, and internet website of an OFI only if the OFI consents in writing. We continue to believe the regulation is necessary to deal with this issue and is not unduly burdensome. In addition, we continue to believe that the OFI, and not the FCS bank, should be the party to decide whether its information is made public as designed in the regulation.

Comment: The Special Collateral Requirements for post-closing certification, after the issuance of a standard title insurance policy and compliance with customary loan closing procedures, are duplicative and unnecessary. With this requirement, the System institution is being asked to effectively “re-certify” the work that the title insurance company has been paid to perform. The title insurance company has agreed to insure the risks that this regulation is designed to mitigate, which makes this requirement burdensome.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. The Act requires that long-term mortgage loans be secured by first liens on real estate as may be prescribed by regulations of the FCA. Section 615.5060 provides institutions one of two methods to validate the institution's first lien position: Attorney lien certification or title insurance policy. Choosing to use a title insurance policy creates obvious additional fiduciary responsibilities for the institution such as: Ensuring that the title insurance company is licensed, ensuring that the final policy meets the institution's specifications, and ensuring that the insured amount at least equals the outstanding loan balance. We do not view verifying that a policy is valid, adequate, and proper as “re-certifying” the work of the title insurance company, but simply good business practice to ensure compliance with the first lien requirement of the Act.

Comment: The approval process for public-private partnership investments, such as community health care facilities, would better serve rural America if it were streamlined. The current case-by-case approval process significantly hinders the development of critical projects in rural communities. The commenters recommend that FCA streamline the approval process for investments in public-private partnerships that benefit rural communities and modify the regulation to specifically allow the purchase of community facility bonds as mission-related investments.

FCA Response: FCA has developed a process to expedite and streamline case-by-case requests that meet certain criteria. Many requests for community health care facilities are handled on an expedited basis. We continue to consider other ways to streamline the process for FCA consideration of case-by-case investment requests.

Comment: The regulations require System Institutions to disclose rate changes when the rates are tied to a widely published external index ( i.e., prime rate or LIBOR); however, the intent of permitting such interest rates is transparency. Borrowers can determine their rate by numerous published sources. To require notification by System institutions of rate changes as outlined by the regulation is unnecessary and burdensome.

FCA Response: We cannot make the recommended change because it conflicts with statute. Section 4.13(a)(4) of the Act requires qualified lenders to provide borrowers, for all loans not subject to the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ), “meaningful and timely disclosure” of any change in the interest rate applicable to the borrower's loan within a “reasonable time after the effective date” of a change. Given that notification of a change in interest rate is a statutory requirement, removing the regulation is not an option. Nevertheless, we believe the regulation provides for significant flexibility by allowing for notifications to be made “as part of the borrower's first regularly scheduled billing statement affected by the rate change.” In other words, only the billing statements need to reflect the rate changes that occurred during the billing period and a separate notice is not required. Further, the status of LIBOR continuing as an index for loans is uncertain, and loans may need to be indexed to a replacement. Given uncertainty over the replacement, including whether it will be as widely published and available as LIBOR, we do not believe that this would be an appropriate time to consider any lessening of disclosure requirements for indexed loans.

Comment: Section 4.29 of the Act requires a written notice to customers that the purchase of insurance (when required as condition to obtain the loan) through the lender is optional. Section 618.8040(b) should be revised to eliminate the requirement for a separate, written statement.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. We continue to believe that a written notice that is separately signed by the member or borrower is necessary to carry out Congressional intent. We also continue to believe that our position outlined in the preamble to the existing regulation continues to be appropriate: “provide documentation to refute any potential allegations that borrowers were coerced into purchasing insurance offered by banks or associations.”

Comment: The requirements of §§ 618.8440(b)(7) and (b)(8) pertaining to human capital and marketing plans are excessively prescriptive and detailed without any corresponding benefit to the institutions or mission achievement. Specifically, the regulations required significant detail in both the human capital and marketing plans that goes beyond what is appropriate for inclusion, even at a summary level, in a business plan. To reduce burden and requirements that are duplicative in nature, the FCA should generalize the human capital and marketing plan requirements.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. These two regulatory sections were specifically written to minimize any regulatory burden and require the minimum strategies and actions needed to develop these sections of the business plan. We do not believe that these requirements rise to the level of “significant detail” and that they go “beyond what is appropriate for inclusion in a business plan.”

We continue to believe that these human capital and marketing planning regulatory requirements are critical to institution operations. Human capital and marketing plans are opportunities to lay out the institution's demographics and address strategies to make progress in diversity and inclusion as a vital component of its corporate culture and being more responsive to the credit needs of all eligible and creditworthy agricultural producers and other eligible persons.

Comment: The reporting requirements for the syndication and participations study are burdensome and manually intensive, time consuming, and do not augment internal management's tools. FCA should evaluate the data gathered to date for the syndication and participations study and determine the usefulness of gathering additional data in the future.

FCA Response: We agree that less reporting is now adequate compared to what we originally required. Consequently, we reduced the reporting from quarterly to annually beginning in 2018. We are also evaluating more streamlined ways in which the annual data could be provided to FCA. However, we continue to believe that collecting the data is necessary for the analysis of the complex issues being considered through the loan syndication study.

Comment: Proxy voting requirements should be removed when using mail ballots. The use of digital processes are more efficient, and the proxy method required is cumbersome to stockholders, which encourages them not to vote.

FCA Response: A proxy authorizes someone to attend a meeting instead of the voting stockholder and take actions, including casting a vote if there will be in-person voting, with the same authority as the stockholder granting the proxy. Our existing regulations in part 609 and 611 allow proxies to be delivered electronically to those individual shareholders who have consented to e-commerce for voting events. However, electronic communications in voting events, including proxies, must satisfy the same confidentiality and security requirements when paper, and not electronics, are used.

Comment: Section 611.326 specifies the procedures to use for allowing floor nominations at association annual meetings. The System recognizes that floor nominations are required in accord with the Farm Credit Act. However, the current procedures are unwieldy, cumbersome, time-consuming and costly. Moreover, they actually undermine the existing nomination committee process, and FCA guidance and can impede the ability of stockholders to make an informed voting decision. They make compliance with disclosure requirements difficult for both the institution and the nominee. Associations should have increased flexibility to adopt procedures that maintain the ability for floor nominations, while facilitating compliance with disclosure and voting procedures.

FCA Response: We are not persuaded by the comment that a change is needed. This issue was thoroughly studied when we finalized this regulation, and our analysis has not changed. 4 We believe that the procedures outlined in the rule are consistent with the statutory requirement and that the comment raises issues that we considered in the rulemaking.

Comment: FCA should revise its E-commerce definition to be consistent with the definition used generally in the marketplace. The current application of the FCA regulatory definition is overly broad and results in an expansive application by examiners, application beyond what is required by E-commerce laws, and creates an unnecessary burden on FCS institutions.

FCA Response: Our Cybersecurity Workgroup is reviewing the E-commerce regulations, including whether the term “E-Commerce” is outdated. The Workgroup is considering whether the terminology of “E-Commerce” should be removed from FCA Regulations and replaced with the word “Information Technology”.

Comment: FCA requires reports of known or suspicious criminal activity through the use of FCA's Criminal Referral Form (CRF). This referral form is unique to FCA and not integrated with FinCEN's Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) system that is used by law enforcement and Federal prosecutors to fight financial crimes. CoBank voluntarily complies with SAR filing requirements. As a result, FCA's requirement to use an FCA CRF is burdensome and confusing to criminal enforcement authorities in those situations when CoBank files a SAR and is required by FCA to also file an FCA CRF. Importantly, the SAR form provides effectively and efficiently the same information contained in the FCA CRF for use by law enforcement. FCA should eliminate this burden and accept the SAR form instead of the FCA CRF in those instances where reporting is provided under FinCEN filing requirements.

FCA Response: Our Criminal Referral Workgroup is considering whether FCA should issue guidance to provide clarification on this issue.

Comment: FCA requires the reporting of “Any known or suspected criminal activity involving a financial transaction in which the institution was used as a conduit for such criminal activity (such as money laundering/structuring schemes)” without any threshold or test for substance. To provide consistency in requirements applicable to commercial banks for the filing of SARs, the FCA should implement a $5,000 threshold for filing an FCA CFR when the suspect is known and $25,000 when the suspect is unknown.

FCA Response: Our Criminal Referral Workgroup is considering whether we should provide guidance to clarify this issue.

Comment: Production credit association and agricultural credit association loan authorities should be updated to reflect current System structure. There is no statutory basis to maintain restrictions on production credit association real estate lending, or that loans amortize within a period of 15 years, or whether the customer already owns the land or is purchasing it. Amortization and repayment should be a matter of appropriate credit administration, not regulation.

FCA Response: We plan to address this comment in conjunction with the amortization limits project that is listed on our Regulatory Projects Plan and Unified Agenda. The project will address the amortization limits for loans made under the production credit association authority.

Comment: Section 615.5134(d) describes specific, extensive requirements for each System bank to maintain its liquidity reserve. All System banks maintain liquidity reserves well in excess of regulatory requirements. The imposition of an additional “marketability study” for each bank is unduly burdensome and ignores the facts and circumstances of each bank's portfolio. FCA should look at both the quantity and quality of the bank's liquidity reserve, as well as its actual experience with execution of transactions to decide whether a study is necessary, rather than imposing an arbitrary requirement to conduct a study that is both costly and of little, if any, value.

FCA Response: We incorporated this comment into our study of the Liquidity Coverage Ratio.

Comment: The requirements for adverse action should be amended to use the same terminology as that used in Regulation B.

FCA Response: We plan to address this comment in conjunction with the borrower rights project that is listed on our Regulatory Projects Plan and Unified Agenda. As part of this project, we will study the similarities and differences between the Regulation B requirements and our adverse action regulations.

As noted above, some of the regulatory burden issues raised need further evaluation before we can consider whether changes are appropriate.

Comment: The Agency has not updated the Scope of Lending regulation, § 613.3005, since 1997. Farming and who is considered a full-time farmer have continued to evolve over this time. Many farmers, regardless of the size of the farming operation, have multiple sources of off-farm income, but still devote a significant amount of time to farming. This is particularly true with the Young, Beginning and Small Farmer segment, which the System is directed to serve. FCA guidance in regard to financing of legal entities with 100% ownership by eligible farmers needs to be updated to reflect the variety of modern legal structures used in agricultural production.

FCA Response: The comment correctly points out that the FCA has not recently updated this regulation. However, further evaluation is needed before we can consider whether the recommended changes are appropriate. We will consider this recommendation in any future review of this regulation.

Comment: Section 618.8310 should be omitted. With security and privacy of borrower information heightened, releasing borrowers' names and addresses conflicts with current practices and standards.

FCA Response: Section 4.12A of the Act requires a System bank or association to provide to a stockholder of the bank or association a current list of stockholders of the bank or association not later than 7 calendar days after the date on which the bank or association receives a written request for the stockholder list from the stockholder. This provision has been slightly revised in the most recent Farm Bill, and although we are not currently reviewing this regulation, we may consider reviewing this provision in the future.

Comment: Make changes to § 613.3100(c)(2) to reflect changes to the Rural Electrification Act, as amended (REA), since CoBank's lending authorities for electric and telecommunication borrowers are derived from the REA.

FCA Response: Changes to FCA regulations in this area are not necessary for CoBank to implement the 2018 Farm Bill. Further evaluation is needed before we can consider whether regulatory changes are appropriate. We will consider this recommendation in any future review of this regulation.

Comment: FCA regulation § 615.5060(a)(2)(iii) establishing multiple title policy ratio amounts should be deleted. It has no legal validity, it does not always represent the risk profile of collateral and title issuers have different opinions/requirements.

FCA Response: Further evaluation is needed before we can consider whether the recommended change is appropriate. We will consider this recommendation in any future review.

Comment: Eliminate the requirement for distribution of the annual report in accordance with § 620.4. Electronic access should be adequate. There is no need to mail copies of the annual report.

Comment: The requirements of § 620.6, in particular the provisions relating to retirement account information and travel reimbursement policies, are unduly burdensome and also confusing or even misleading to stockholders. We believe this is an area where the quality of the disclosures can be improved, while reducing paperwork and costs.

FCA Response: Further evaluation is needed before we can consider whether the recommended changes are appropriate. We will consider this recommendation in any future review.

Comment: Delivering a copy of the quarterly report along with annual report is burdensome and produces minimal value to stockholder. The same could be achieved by referencing location of both reports on website.

FCA Response: As outlined in § 615.5250, a System institution must provide a prospective borrower with several documents related to borrower stock in conjunction with obtaining a loan. We believe that including the annual report and most recent quarterly report in with the other documents is not a burden and that the benefit in helping to attract a prospective borrower outweighs any burden that may exist. Nonetheless, there may be room for modifications, but further evaluation is needed before we can consider whether the recommended change is appropriate. We will consider this recommendation in any future review.

Comment: FCA has increased the amount of loan data required to be submitted to the agency. There is a material administrative cost to System institutions to update and maintain the systems to collect and report that information. FCA should consider the costs and benefits of those requirements on an institution specific basis.

FCA Response: Further evaluation is needed before we can consider whether the recommended change is appropriate. We will consider this recommendation in any future review.

For over 25 years, we have been making a concerted effort to remove regulatory burden whenever possible and will continue to do so into the future. However, we will maintain those regulations that are necessary to implement the Act and are critical for the safety and soundness of the System. Our approach is intended to enable the System to continue to provide credit to America's farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers, their cooperatives and other rural residents.

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions — including interest assumptions — for paying plan benefits under terminated single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's website ( https://www.pbgc.gov ).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments”) to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Because some private-sector pension plans use these interest rates to determine lump sum amounts payable to plan participants (if the resulting lump sum is larger than the amount required under section 417(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 205(g)(3) of ERISA), these rates are also provided in appendix C to part 4022 (“Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments”).

This final rule updates appendices B and C of the benefits payment regulation to provide the rates for June 2019 measurement dates.

The June 2019 lump sum interest assumptions will be 1.00 percent for the period during which a benefit is (or is assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for May 2019, these assumptions represent no change in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.

PBGC updates appendices B and C each month. PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to issue new interest assumptions promptly so that they are available for plans that rely on our publication of them each month to calculate lump sum benefit amounts.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during June 2019, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive necessary information from the event sponsor with enough time to publish a NPRM. Additionally, the Coast Guard has published a special local regulation for this event in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701, Section (g) Line 2; however, the existing special location regulation is dated for the first week of May.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because the event is taking place on June 1, 2019 and immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1233). The Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Low Country Splash Open Swim event present a safety concern for anyone in the vicinity of the regulated area during the event. This rule is needed to protect participants, spectators, and the general public in the navigable waters within the regulated area during the Low Country Splash Open Swim event.

This rule establishes a special local regulation from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on June 1, 2019. The special local regulation would cover all navigable waters within a moving zone, beginning at Daniel Island Pier, then moving south along the coast of Daniel Island, then across the Wando River to Hobcaw Yacht Club, then south along the coast of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., to Charleston Harbor Resort Marina. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (4) the regulated area will impact small designated areas of Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor for only 3 hours and thus is limited in time and scope.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule a special local regulation lasting 3 hours, restricting persons and vessels from entering certain waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the date of the first events. The rule must be in force by May 18, 2019. We are taking immediate action to ensure the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks displays. Hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks displays on the dates listed above will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100 yard radius of the fireworks barge, which will be anchored in approximate position 39°34′09.32″ N, 074°14′31.67″ W. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels and the public within the safety zone during the fireworks displays.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of Little Egg Harbor in Beach Haven, NJ, during a series of fireworks displays from a barge. The events are scheduled to take place at approximately 8:30 p.m. on May 18, May 25, June 1, June 7, July 20, July 27, August 10, September 1, October 5, 2019, and October 12, 2019. The safety zone will extend 100 yards around the barge, which will be anchored at approximate position 39°34′09.32″ N, 074°14′31.67″ W. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide public notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

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

The impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Little Egg Harbor, including the navigational channel, for 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally; (2) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable water on a portion of Little Egg Harbor in Beach Haven, NJ, during a series of 10 fireworks displays lasting approximately one hour each. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506, entry (a)(12) for the Ocean Township Memorial Day Fireworks display from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on May 25, 2019. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table to § 165.506, entry (a)(12), specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Barnegat Bay in Ocean Township, NJ, within 500 yards of a fireworks barge launch site at approximate position latitude 39°47′33″ N, longitude 074°10′46″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone during the enforcement period unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on scene.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via broadcast notice to mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish these security zones by May 9, 2019 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier (LNGC) MARVEL FALCON between May 9, 2019 and May 14, 2019 will be a security concern while the vessel is moored at the receiving facility and within a 500-yard radius of the vessel while the vessel is loaded with cargo.

This rule establishes two security zones around LNGC MARVEL FALCON from May 9, 2019 through May 14, 2019. A fixed security zone will be in effect in the mooring basin bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W, while LNGC MARVEL FALCON is moored. A moving security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the LNGC MARVEL FALCON while the vessel transits outbound with cargo through the La Quinta Channel and Corpus Christi Ship Channel. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

Entry into these security zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) of the enforcement times and dates for these security zones.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and location of the security zone. This rule will impact a small designated area of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel while the vessel is moored at the receiving facility and during the vessel's transit while loaded with cargo. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary fixed security zone while LNGC MARVEL FALCON is moored at the receiving facility mooring basin bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W, and a temporary moving security zone while the vessel transits with cargo within the La Quinta Channel and Corpus Christi Ship Channel, that will prohibit entry within 500-yard radius of LNGC MARVEL FALCON. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

I. 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(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0207 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 15, 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-2018-0207, 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 August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40272) (FRL-9981-10), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP#8F8668) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, RTP, NCP 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.473 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide glufosinate ammonium, butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) monoammonium salt, and its metabolites, 2-(acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid, and 3-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoic acid equivalents, in or on olive at 0.50 parts per million (ppm); fruit, stone (crop group 12-12) at 0.30 ppm; nut, tree (crop group 14-12) at 0.50 ppm, and soybean hulls at 10 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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 glufosinate ammonium including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with glufosinate ammonium follows.

In the Federal Register of September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59106) (FRL-9363-6), EPA established tolerances for residues of glufosinate ammonium in or on corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; corn, sweet, stover; fruit, citrus (crop group 10-10); olive; fruit, pome (crop group 11-10); and fruit, stone (crop group 12-12). EPA concluded a risk assessment in 2013 for the registration review of glufosinate and in 2017 for an increase in use rates in/on canola, corn (field and sweet), and soybean and to incorporate 6(a)(2) data on pistachio. The 2018 risk assessment for an increase in tolerances for olive; fruit, stone (group 12-12); nut, tree (group 14-12); and soybean, hulls concluded that the 2012, 2013, and 2017 risk assessments support the tolerance increases. The tolerance increases do not increase the dietary or aggregate risk estimates. A detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for the tolerance increases can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in documents titled “Glufosinate Ammonium. Abbreviated Risk Assessment for Increase in Tolerances for Olive, Stone Fruit (Group 12-12), Tree Nuts (Group 14-12), and Soybean Hull.”, “Glufosinate ammonium. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Label Amendment Increasing the Use Rate in/on Canola, Com (Field and sweet), and Soybean; and to Incorporate 6(a)(2) Data on Pistachio.”, “Glufosinate Ammonium. Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review.”, and “Glufosinate Ammonium. Updated Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use of Glufosinate Ammonium in/on Citrus Fruit (Crop Group 10), Pome Fruit (Crop Group 11), Stone Fruit (Crop Group 12), Olives and Sweet Corn” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0207.

EPA concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to glufosinate ammonium residues.

An adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method 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 glufosinate ammonium in or on olive or soybean hulls. Codex has set a MRL for stone fruit at 0.15 ppm, and a MRL for tree nuts at 0.1 ppm. EPA cannot harmonize recommended U.S. tolerance values with the Codex MRLs for stone fruit or tree nuts because the lower MRLs could be exceeded with the uses petitioned-for in this action.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of glufosinate ammonium, butanoic acid, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) monoammonium salt, and its metabolites, 2-(acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethyl phosphinyl) butanoic acid, and 3-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) propanoic acid, expressed as 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoic acid equivalents, in or on olive at 0.50 ppm; fruit, stone (crop group 12-12) at 0.30 ppm; nut, trees (crop group 14-12) at 0.50 ppm; and soybean, hulls at 10 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance 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:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters docket? C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets? D. How do I access the documents? E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? C. Site Name Change IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site ( e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property ( e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction ( e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174024.

Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section II.D.

The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site.

The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see ADDRESSES section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of this document).

This final rule adds the following seven sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS score.

The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding seven sites to the NPL in this final rule. The PROTECO site in Peñuelas, PR was proposed for addition to the NPL on May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22918). The remaining six sites were proposed for addition to the NPL on September 13, 2018 (83 FR 46460).

Comments on the PROTECO site are being addressed in a response to comment support document available in the public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on this site, as well as EPA's response, please refer to the support document available at https://www.regulations.gov.

The EPA received no comments on the Cliff Drive Groundwater Contamination site.

EPA received comments supporting the listing of McLouth Steel Corp, Sporlan Valve Plant #1 and Copper Bluff Mine.

For Magna Metals, in addition to several comments in support of the listing, the EPA received one comment from a community member raising concerns about the adequacy of previous site investigations and urging that a comprehensive off-site investigation be conducted as part of the RI/FS process. In response, the commenter's suggestions for further study have been noted and will be considered during further site related activities. The RI/FS study phase involves on-site and off-site testing to assess the nature and extent of the public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-funded remedial actions, if any, may be appropriate.

For the Shaffer Equipment/Arbuckle Creek Area, the EPA received overwhelming community support for placing the site on the NPL, including mass mailers from community members. A law firm representing the community provided an independent technical review that raised concerns about previous cleanup work by EPA under the removal program but supported NPL listing as a means to address site risks under Superfund's remedial program. Several commenters requested permanent relocation either for themselves or on behalf of other community members. A few commenters raised concerns about the possibility of contamination spreading. Several comments from community members opposed listing because of the perceived stigma of Superfund which they believe could result in negative community impacts.

In response, EPA is adding the Shaffer Equipment/Arbuckle Creek Area to the NPL. Economic factors are generally not considered in the assessment of whether a site belongs on the NPL. However, the EPA notes that there are both costs and benefits that can be associated with including a site on the NPL. Among the benefits are increased environmental protection resulting from the cleanup. Therefore, it is possible that any perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values that may result from contamination may also be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and any necessary cleanup are completed.

For several sites included in this final rule, the EPA received comments unrelated to listing which were not relevant. In addition, there were several sites for which comments were submitted erroneously to incorrect docket numbers. All listing-related comments that were submitted to incorrect dockets were duplicated into the correct dockets for the site for which they were intended.

On September 13, 2018 (83 FR 46460), EPA proposed to change the name of an NPL site in San Francisco, California which was formally known as the Treasure Island Naval Station-Hunters Point Annex site. EPA received no comments on the name change. Therefore, the name has been changed and the site is now known as Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The name Hunters Point Naval Shipyard is more representative of the area to the local community and local government. Refer to docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007 for information regarding this site.

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

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

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

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

Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register .

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

The EPA is revising clause 1552.232-70, Submission of Invoices, to add electronic invoicing requirements. In 2019 the EPA will begin using the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP), which is a secure web-based service provided by the U.S. Treasury that efficiently manages government invoicing. Currently the EPA requires contractors and vendors to submit paper invoices, which are inefficient and costly. The EPA will also begin using IPP to satisfy the requirements of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-15-19, Improving Government Efficiency and Saving Taxpayer Dollars Through Electronic Invoicing. By changing the subject clause to require electronic invoicing, the EPA will reap benefits of efficiency and cost that have become ubiquitous in modern commerce, and be in compliance with Memorandum M-15-19. On December 20, 2018 ( 83 FR 65328 ) EPA sought comments on the proposed rule and received no comments.

The final rule amends EPAAR Part 1552, Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, by revising EPAAR § 1552.232-70, Submission of Invoices.

1. EPAAR § 1552.232-70, Submission of Invoices clause is revised to provide new electronic invoicing requirements as the EPA begins using the IPP electronic-invoicing program in 2019. The clause is revised by replacing the preamble and paragraphs (a) and (b), with new paragraphs (a) and (b), that update the old paper invoicing instructions to electronic invoicing. Paragraph (g)(5) is revised to remove references to suspended costs, which are not authorized under IPP. The “Note to paragraph (i)” and “Note to paragraph (j)” are also being revised to remove references to suspended costs. Finally, paragraph (k) and “Note to paragraph (k)” are being removed because suspended costs are not allowed under IPP, which re-letters the last three paragraphs, re-designating paragraphs (l) through (n) as paragraphs (k) through (m), respectively.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the E.O.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. No information is collected under this action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR clause and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution of Use” (66 FR 28335 (May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental effects.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 1552 is amended as set forth below:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order ( Order ), FCC 19-10, adopted February 14, 2019 and released on February 15, 2019. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In this Report and Order ( Order ), we eliminate the requirement in Section 73.2080(f)(2) of the Commission's rules that certain broadcast television and radio stations file the FCC Broadcast Mid-Term Report (Form 397). Earlier this year, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (83 FR 12313) proposing to eliminate Form 397, which requires stations to provide equal employment opportunity (EEO) information that is generally also available through other sources, including stations' online public inspection files. 1 No commenter opposes elimination of this requirement. As set forth below, we conclude that eliminating this largely redundant reporting requirement will further our efforts to modernize our media rules and reduce unnecessary requirements without hindering the Commission's ability to conduct mid-term reviews of broadcasters' EEO practices.

2. Section 334(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), directs the Commission to conduct a mid-term review of broadcast stations' employment practices. Commission staff reviews the EEO practices of broadcast television stations in station employment units with five or more full-time employees, 2 and radio stations in employment units with eleven or more full-time employees, around the midpoint of broadcasters' eight-year license terms. After completing a mid-term review, staff informs licensees of any necessary improvements in recruitment practices to ensure that they are in compliance with the Commission's EEO rules.

3. To facilitate mid-term reviews, the Commission adopted the current Form 397 in 2002. 3 Licensees subject to mid-term review must file Form 397 at least four months prior to the four-year anniversary of the station's most recent license expiration date. Form 397 consists of three sections and requires stations to provide information that, with one exception, also is available in their public inspection files. 4 First, stations must certify whether they have the requisite number of full-time employees to be subject to a mid-term review. 5 As discussed below, because this piece of information is not otherwise available, we will implement a simple mechanism for stations to provide it to the Commission via the Online Public Inspection File (OPIF). Second, stations must identify, by name and title, “a particular official with overall responsibility for equal employment opportunity at the station.” This official also must be identified in Form 396, Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Program Report, which must be included in a station's public file. Third, all stations subject to mid-term review must attach copies of their two most recent annual EEO public file reports to Form 397. Each station must also place these reports both in its public file and on its website, if it has one, on an annual basis. Each of the reports must be retained in the station's public file until its next license renewal is granted. Given the availability of this information to both the public and Commission staff even in the absence of Form 397, the record overwhelmingly supports elimination of the obligation to file the form. 6

4. We adopt the NPRM's proposal to eliminate the requirement for broadcast television and radio stations to file Form 397. We agree with commenters that “eliminating this outdated filing requirement will reduce the burden on licensees and the unnecessary waste of administrative and material. resources” without undermining our ability to conduct the statutorily-required mid-term reviews of broadcaster compliance with the EEO rules. 7 Because the transition to the OPIF is now complete, 8 nearly all the information in Form 397 is easily accessible online. As noted above, the number of fulltime employees working at a station, which is the trigger for determining whether a station is subject to a mid-term review, is the only piece of information included in the Form 397 that is not currently available in a station's online public file. To address this issue, we will modify the OPIF, as described below, to enable broadcasters to provide this information to the Commission in a simple way and allow Commission staff to quickly identify stations subject to a mid-term review.

5. As an initial matter, we adopt our tentative conclusion that eliminating Form 397 is consistent with Section 334 of the Act. NAB and Nexstar, the only two commenters to weigh in on our statutory interpretation, agree with our tentative conclusion. Specifically, Section 334(a) prohibits revisions to EEO rules “in effect on September 1, 1992 (47 CFR 73.2080) as such regulations apply to television broadcast station licensees and permittees” and to the forms “used by such licensees and permittees to report pertinent employment data to the Commission.” 9 Section 334's legislative history identifies those forms as FCC Forms 395-B and 396 and, as noted above, the Commission did not adopt Form 397 until after the date listed in Section 334. Accordingly, based on the statutory language and legislative history, we conclude that Form 397 is not subject to the statutory limitation on revisions found in Section 334(a). In addition, although Section 334(b) directed the Commission to revise its regulations to require a mid-term review of television broadcast licensees' employment practices, it did not require the Commission to adopt Form 397. Thus, we adopt our tentative conclusion that Section 334(b) does not bar the Commission from eliminating Form 397, and we emphasize that the Commission will continue to conduct mid-term reviews even in the absence of Form 397. 10

6. We also adopt our tentative conclusion in the NPRM that eliminating the Form 397 filing requirement will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens that no longer serve the public interest. Commenters recognize, prior to establishing the OPIF in 2012, “Form 397 was the only vehicle available to the [Commission] by which it could readily access the requisite documentation to complete its congressionally mandated task of review.” However, now that all broadcast licensees subject to a midterm review are also required to have an online public file, 11 the need for the physical submission of the Form 397 no longer exists. The information in Form 397 is duplicative of documentation and information already available in a station's online public inspection file ( i.e., the requisite EEO contact information and copies of EEO public file reports) or that can easily be made available in the OPIF ( i.e., whether the station has the requisite number of full-time employees). Thus, as commenters contend, the burdens associated with filing Form 397, including “the consumption of internal administrative efforts to prepare and file the form in the system or pay the fees associated with having outside FCC counsel prepare and/or submit the form online on behalf of the licensee,” far outweigh its benefits.

7. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether, if we adopted our proposal to eliminate Form 397, we should separately and more frequently solicit from broadcast licensees EEO point of contact information, the second piece of information collected via Form 397. We find persuasive commenters' arguments that “a separate and singular [new] requirement to provide a station specific EEO contact beyond the context of the Form 397 is unnecessary.” Indeed, such a requirement already exists. Given that the Commission already solicits EEO point of contact information once every eight years through Form 396 and station licensee contact information on various FCC forms, we agree that soliciting this information elsewhere is unnecessary.

8. To ensure that Commission staff will still be able to identify which licensees are subject to a mid-term review in the absence of Form 397, we will require radio stations to answer a question about staffing size in order to upload an EEO public file report to the OPIF. In the NPRM, we identified two possible ways to make this information available, as proposed by NAB. The first, NAB's preferred approach, would “require all subject stations to indicate whether they are subject to a mid-term review on their annual EEO public file report.” As the NPRM explained, however, “this proposal would not provide information in a format that easily could be aggregated,” and would potentially require Commission staff to manually review thousands of EEO public file reports in order to determine which stations are subject to a mid-term review. Alternatively, NAB suggested modifying the OPIF itself to require stations to indicate whether they are subject to a mid-term review as a prerequisite to filing their annual EEO public file report. The NPRM proposed that this could be achieved by “adding questions regarding staff size to each station's public file that must be answered before the station can upload its EEO public file report.” NAB argues that this approach would require greater Commission staff resources than its first proposal, but does not explain why it believes this to be the case. No other commenter put forth alternative proposals or addressed the concerns raised by the Commission about the first proposal suggested by NAB.

9. We adopt NAB's second proposal and require radio stations uploading an EEO public file report to the OPIF, as they are required to do annually under our rules, to identify whether their staff size is sufficient to trigger a mid-term review. 12 This information, entered into the OPIF itself rather than simply recorded on an uploaded document in a way that is not aggregable, will allow Commission staff to quickly and easily identify stations subject to mid-term review. As acknowledged in the NPRM, this approach will impose a one-time information technology resource cost on the Commission, but will also minimize the annual administrative burden of conducting the statutorily-required mid-term review. It also has the attribute of imposing only a de minimis burden on subject stations to answer an additional question at the time they upload their annual EEO report. We note that we anticipate that the necessary information technology work to effectuate this change will be completed well before the next radio midterm review cycle. 13

10. In addition to the proposed elimination of Form 397, the NPRM also sought comment on “the FCC's track record on EEO enforcement and how the agency can make improvements to EEO compliance and enforcement.” We received responsive comments from a group of 33 organizations (collectively the “EEO Supporters”). While these commenters did not address the NPRM' s proposal to eliminate Form 397, in response to the NPRM the EEO Supporters expressed concern over the degree to which the Commission has addressed “the core issue” of word-of-mouth recruiting “conducted by a homogenous, non-diverse staff,” or “cronyism,” within the broadcast industry. 14 They also recommended that the Commission engage in audit reform and locate EEO staff in the Enforcement Bureau. 15 Within 90 days of adoption of this Order, the Commission will seek comment in a Further Notice on the FCC's track record on EEO enforcement and how the agency can make improvements to EEO compliance and enforcement. 16

11. For the reasons discussed above, we find that § 73.2080(f)(2)'s requirement that certain broadcast television and radio stations file Form 397 is unduly burdensome and no longer necessary. We amend our rules to eliminate Form 397 after the completion of the current mid-term review cycle which ends on April 1, 2019. 17

12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 18 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) in MB Docket 18-23. 19 The Commission sought written public comments on proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

13. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order. The Report and Order ( Order ) stems from a Public Notice issued by the Commission in May 2017, launching an initiative to modernize the Commission's media regulations. 20 Numerous parties in that proceeding argued for elimination of the recordkeeping requirement at issue as redundant and unnecessary. The Order adopts the NPRM' s proposal to eliminate a provision of the Commission's rules that obligates certain broadcasters to file a Broadcast Mid-Term Report documenting their compliance with the Commission's EEO requirements, without eliminating the mid-term review of employment practices.

14. Specifically, the Order eliminates the requirement that broadcast television stations in station employment units (SEUs) with five or more full-time employees, and radio stations in SEUs with 11 or more full-time employees, file Form 397 four months prior to the date four years after their most recent license expiration date. 21 This Order reduces an outdated regulation and unnecessary regulatory burdens that can impede competition and innovation in media markets. It also announces changes to the Commission's Online Public Inspection File database (OPIF) in order for Commission staff to determine which stations are subject to the statutory mid-term review of employment practices. 22

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

16. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. 23 The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to this proceeding.

17. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted. 24 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction”  25 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 26 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 27 The final rules adopted herein affect small television and radio broadcast stations. A description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below.

18. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”  28 These establishments operate television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. 29 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 30 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 95 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more. 31 Based on this data, we estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size standard.

19. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,349. 32 Of this total, 1,277 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on October 1, 2018. Such entities, therefore, qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 412. 33 The Commission, however, does not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

20. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations  34 must be included. Our estimate, therefore likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the proposed rules would apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore could be over-inclusive.

21. There are also 1,911 LPTV stations and 389 Class A stations. 35 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

22. Radio Stations. This economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.”  36 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for this category: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. 37 Census data for 2012 shows that 2,849 firms in this category operated in that year. 38 Of this number, 2,806 firms had annual receipts of less than $25,000,000, and 43 firms had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or more. 39 Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard, the majority of such entities are small entities.

23. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be 4,626 stations  40 and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,737, for a total number of 11,363. 41 Of this total, 11,362 stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on October 1, 2018. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of noncommercial educational FM radio stations to be 4,130. 42 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities. 43 Therefore, we estimate that the majority of radio broadcast stations are small entities.

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

25. Reporting Requirements. The Order does adopt new reporting requirements. 44 It requires radio stations to indicate whether they have the requisite number of full-time employees to be subject to a mid-term review.

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

27. Other Compliance Requirements. The Order does not adopt new compliance requirements.

28. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 45

29. The Order eliminates the obligation imposed on certain broadcasters to file a Broadcast Mid-Term Report on employment practices. Eliminating this requirement is intended to modernize the Commission's regulations and reduce costs and recordkeeping burdens for affected entities, including small entities. Under the prior rule, affected entities were required to expend time and resources gathering and filing consolidated information that is largely already otherwise supplied to the Commission. The Order will require radio stations uploading an EEO public file report to answer one “either/or” question about staffing in order to determine their eligibility for the statutorily mandated mid-term review of broadcast equal employment practices. In the aggregate, replacing Form 397 with this requirement to provide additional information in the OPIF constitutes a reduction in burdens, and is as minimal a burden as possible for all entities, including small entities. Thus, we anticipate that affected small entities only stand to benefit from these revisions.

30. This document contains proposed new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. We have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA.

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

32. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 334 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 334 this Report and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED .

33. It is further ordered that this Report and Order SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE on May 1, 2019, except for those provisions which contain non-substantive modifications to existing information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The non-substantive modifications WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE upon the effective date announced when the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such OMB approval and the effective date.

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

35. It is further ordered that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of the Report and Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

36. It is further ordered that, should no petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB Docket No. 18-23 shall be TERMINATED, and its docket closed.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

Background

The Atlantic spiny dogfish fishery is jointly managed in Federal waters by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils under the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), with the Mid-Atlantic Council serving as the administrative lead. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages the fishery in state waters from Maine to North Carolina through an interstate fishery management plan. Regulations implementing the spiny dogfish FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and L, and require the specification of an annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and the total allowable landings (TAL). These limits and other management measures may be set for up to five fishing years at a time, with each fishing year running from May 1 through April 30. This action implements spiny dogfish specifications for the 2019 fishing year, and announces projected specifications for 2020 and 2021, as recommended by the Councils.

The proposed rule for this action published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2019 (84 FR 11923), and comments were accepted through April 15, 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 final 2019 and projected 2020-2021 spiny dogfish specifications (Table 1) as described in the March 29, 2019, proposed rule. These specifications substantially reduce the coastwide commercial quota in 2019 to ensure overfishing does not occur. Quota increases are projected for 2020 and 2021 as the stock biomass is expected to increase and the risk of overfishing declines. The lower catch limits are not expected to have a substantial impact on industry, as the reduced coastwide quotas remain higher than total annual landings in recent years.

All other fishery management measures, including the 6,000-lb (2,722-kg) Federal trip limit, remain unchanged. Changes to the trip limit may be pursued in a future, separate rulemaking action. By providing projected quotas for 2019 and 2020, NMFS hopes to assist fishery participants in planning ahead. The Councils will review these specifications annually, and NMFS will provide notice prior to each fishing year to finalize specifications and related measures.

The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on April 15, 2019. Five comments were received from the public on this rule during the 15-day comment period. No changes to the proposed specifications were made as a result of these comments.

Comment 1: One commenter requested that the spiny dogfish quota be reduced by 50 percent to prevent overfishing, claimed that widespread corruption and commercial profiteering was taking place across all fisheries, and asked that all trawl gear be banned. No rationale or evidence was presented to support the commenter's claims.

Response 1: This action does reduce the commercial spiny dogfish quota by 46 percent to prevent overfishing, which is almost the 50 percent requested by the commenter. Banning trawl gear is beyond the scope of outcomes contemplated in specifications.

Comment 2: Another commenter alleged that the spiny dogfish quota should not be reduced because they prey on valuable groundfish.

Response 2: This action manages the spiny dogfish fishery in terms of the target species' stock health and availability. At this time, the FMP does not account for predation effects by spiny dogfish on other species.

Comment 3: The commenter supported this action and the quota reduction, but was also concerned with inaccurate data from trawl fisheries, and effects on the recreational spiny dogfish fishery.

Response 3: These specifications were developed using the best scientific information available, which includes fishery independent trawl surveys. These surveys are conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and others, and are not solely dependent on trawl reporting data from within the fishery. Also, there are no Federal regulations governing the spiny dogfish recreational fishery; these specifications apply to the commercial fishery only. For more information on recreational spiny dogfish regulations, contact the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission or your local state agency.

Comment 4: One commenter supported this action, but did not believe that immediate action is required. They agreed that quotas should be reduced in future years to prevent overfishing (perhaps by using limited protected areas), but for now, the stock is stable, and dogfish eat other groundfish species so the population should be controlled.

Response 4: This action reduces the dogfish quota to prevent overfishing based on the best scientific information available. Although the stock is not currently overfished or experiencing overfishing, biomass has been declining, and the quota reductions are a result of the application of the Mid-Atlantic Council's Risk Policy to prevent overfishing, consistent with National Standard 2 and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As stated earlier, the FMP does not account for predation effects of spiny dogfish on other species.

Comment 5: This commenter supported this action's quota reductions for spiny dogfish to preserve future sustainability in the fishery. They also suggested that a sex-specific spiny dogfish fishery be considered to protect against harvest of pregnant females.

Response 5: NMFS agrees that these specifications will better maintain sustainability in the spiny dogfish fishery. Consideration of a sex-specific fishery and management measures was not discussed in this action and would need to be pursued separately by the Councils in the future.

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 Spiny Dogfish 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 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 spiny dogfish fishing year, which began on May 1, 2019. This action implements the final specifications ( i.e., annual catch limits) for the spiny dogfish fishery for the 2019 fishing year. A delay in effectiveness well beyond the start of the fishing year would be contrary to the public interest, as it could create confusion in the commercial spiny dogfish industry. Additionally, it could compromise the effectiveness of the lower catch limits in preventing overfishing while still allowing sustainable yield.

This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. Preparation of the proposed rule was dependent on the submission of the EA, in support of the specifications, developed by the Mid-Atlantic Council. Following submission, documentation in support of the Council's recommended specifications is required for NMFS to provide the public with information from the environmental and economic analyses, as required in rulemaking, and to evaluate the consistency of the Council's recommendation with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. A complete draft of the specifications document and accompanying EA was received in late November 2018. However, the recent lapse in federal appropriations prevented any work on this action from December 22, 2018, through January 25, 2019, and delayed approval of the final EA. As such, the final specifications document and EA was not completed and approved by NMFS until early March 2019. The proposed rule for this action published on March 29, 2019, with a 15-day comment period ending April 15, 2019. A 30-day delay in effectiveness would needlessly postpone implementation of the 2019 specifications beyond the start of the fishing year on May 1, which is contrary to the public interest.

Furthermore, the lower catch limits specified in this action should be implemented as soon as possible to minimize the potential for overfishing. Although the specifications from 2018 are carried into 2019 until new catch limits are implemented, the Councils have recommended a substantial reduction in commercial quota based on the most recent stock assessment update. Harvest occurring within the first weeks of the fishing year based on outdated, higher catch limits could further harm the resource, and subject it to a greater risk of overfishing.

Finally, regulated parties do not require any additional time to come into compliance with this rule, and thus, a 30-day delay in effectiveness does not provide any benefit. Unlike actions that require an adjustment period to comply with new rules, participants in the spiny dogfish fishery will not be required to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these management measures. Fishery stakeholders have also been involved in the development of this action and are anticipating this rule. 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 May 15, 2019.

The final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) included in this final rule was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a), and incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a summary of analyses completed to support the action. A public copy of the environmental assessment/IRFA is available from the Mid-Atlantic Council (see ADDRESSES ). The preamble to the proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated here.

NMFS did not receive any comments in response to the IRFA or regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) process. Refer to the “Comments and Responses” section of this rule's preamble for more detail on the public comments that were received. No changes to the proposed rule were made as a result of public comment.

This final rule affects small entities engaged in commercial fishing operations in the spiny dogfish fishery. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (or firms), not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities. Because of this, some vessels with spiny dogfish permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. In terms of RFA, a business primarily engaged in commercial fishing activity is classified as a small business if it has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. To identify these small and large firms, vessel ownership data from the permit database were grouped according to common owners and sorted by size.

The current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2017 (the most recent complete year available). In 2017, there were 2,254 vessels that held a spiny dogfish permit, while 244 of these vessels contributed to overall landings. Cross-referencing those permits with vessel ownership database revealed that 1,695 entities owned those vessels. 1,685 were classified as small entities, with the remaining 10 classified as large businesses. Of the 1,685 small entities, 374 had no revenue in 2017, 1,104 were commercial fishing entities, and 207 were for-hire entities. Overall, there were 227 entities with spiny dogfish permits that reported revenue from spiny dogfish landings during 2017. Of those entities, 1 was large and 226 were small and their average overall revenues in 2017 were $0.4 million.

No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.

Specification of commercial catch limits is constrained by the conservation objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action implements final 2019 and projected 2020-2021 commercial catch specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery based on the most recent stock assessment update. The Councils also considered taking no action, where the same catch limits and specifications from fishing year 2018 would continue into 2019 with no change. Only these two alternatives were considered by the Councils. NMFS is somewhat constrained in approving specifications in that the agency can approve, disapprove, partially approve, or in very limited circumstances substitute measures to end overfishing and rebuild stocks if Council-recommended measures will not do so. Because of this, there are limited options to minimize potential impacts on small entities.

This rule decreases the commercial quota by 46 percent to 9,309 mt in 2019, followed by modest projected increases to 10,521 mt and 12,438 mt, in 2020 and 2021, respectively. Although the 46-percent reduction in 2019 is a substantial quota change, landings reports from the most recent available full fishing year (2017) show that 7,439 mt of spiny dogfish were landed. Available landing information for fishing year 2018 is around 23 percent lower than in 2017. Given this data, it is likely that the reduction in quota for 2019 will not constrain the spiny dogfish industry, including small entities.

If the fishery were to reverse the recent landing trends and achieve the proposed 2019 quota, it would still generate more landings and likely more revenues than the most recent year (2017) of full fishery information. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed action will have minimal impact on small entities.

Taking no action was also considered, where the same catch limits and specifications from 2018 would continue into 2019 and beyond. This may have had a higher potential to minimize short-term economic impacts on small entities, as the quotas would remain higher, providing the potential for greater revenues and economic gain. However, as previously stated, effort and landings in the spiny dogfish fishery have been low in recent years, and higher quotas increase the risk of overfishing without addressing the issues in the market that may be keeping landings low. Therefore, maintaining status quo specifications was not recommended by the Councils because it would exceed catch level recommendations, put the spiny dogfish stock at an unnecessary risk of overfishing, and would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

NMFS does not anticipate any significant economic impacts on small entities as a result of implementing the reduced quotas in this action. While there is a substantial reduction in the 2019 ACT and commercial quota, analyses indicate that coastwide spiny dogfish landings have been less than these approved specifications in recent years. It is unlikely that potential revenue losses would be directly affected by these quota reductions. In addition, these quotas are projected to increase in 2020 and 2021, so any impact to small entities affected by this action may be remedied quickly as the risk of overfishing subsides.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the spiny dogfish fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide ( i.e., permit holder letter) are available from NMFS at the following website: www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.