In FR Doc. 2019-19023 appearing on page 46423 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, September 4, 2019, the following correction is made:

1. On page 46424, in the third column, in footnote 9, the text is revised to read as follows: “See 6 CFR 37.11.”

AD 2019-15-07, Amendment 39-19700 (84 FR 41614, August 15, 2019) (“AD 2019-15-07”), requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage lower lobe frames, and applicable on-condition actions. That AD also provides an optional terminating action for certain repetitive inspections. That AD applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, 737-200, 737-200C, 737-300, 737-400, and 737-500 series airplanes.

As published, paragraph (h) of the regulatory text of AD 2019-15-07 contains an error. Paragraph (h) of the AD incorrectly refers to paragraph (i) as the Exceptions to Service Information Specifications paragraph, and it should have referred to paragraph (j) of the AD.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1362, dated September 20, 2018. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage lower lobe frames, applicable on-condition actions, and an optional modification of the tooling holes and insulation attachment holes. On-condition actions include repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower lobe frames, repair, and repetitive post-repair inspections for cracking.

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

This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register .

The effective date of this AD remains September 19, 2019.

Since this action only corrects paragraph references, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.

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

Discussion

The FAA issued AD 2019-06-09, Amendment 39-19607 (84 FR 14602, April 11, 2019) (“AD 2019-06-09”), which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. AD 2019-06-09 was prompted by reports that baby bassinet inserts installed on airplane stowages and partitions were found loose because a self-securing fixation device (Loctite) had not been applied. AD 2019-06-09 required repetitive tightness checks of the baby bassinet inserts installed on stowages and partitions and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, as specified in an EASA AD, which was incorporated by reference. The FAA issued AD 2019-06-09 to address loose baby bassinet inserts, which, if not detected and corrected, could lead to detachment of a baby bassinet, possibly resulting in injury to the infant or other airplane occupants.

Since AD 2019-06-09 was issued, the FAA has determined that a modification of the baby bassinet inserts installed on stowages and partitions is necessary to address the unsafe condition.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0115, dated May 28, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0115”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2019-06-09, this AD retains all requirements of AD 2019-06-09. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2019-0115, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD.

EASA AD 2019-0115 describes procedures for repetitive tightness checks of the baby bassinet inserts installed on stowages and partitions and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, and modification of the baby bassinet inserts, which terminates the repetitive tightness checks. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section, and it is publicly available through the EASA website.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2019-0115 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0115 is incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with the provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0115, through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0115 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-0115 is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0672.

Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2019-0672; Product Identifier 2019-NM-100-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this AD.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440); CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702); CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705); CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900); and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2019 (84 FR 27042). The NPRM was prompted by reports of incorrect deployment of forward and aft flight attendant oxygen masks. The NPRM proposed to require repacking the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen box assemblies as applicable, replacing the placards, and re-identifying the assemblies.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address incorrect packing of the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen box assemblies, which could result in incorrectly deployed oxygen masks, and cause occupant distress and delayed access to oxygen supply during a high altitude emergency.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-03, dated January 19, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440); CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702); CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705); CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900); and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0327.

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

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin 601R-35-021, dated October 30, 2017, which describes procedures for repacking the lavatory oxygen box assembly, replacing the placards, and re-identifying the assembly.

• Service Bulletin 670BA-35-015, dated October 30, 2017, which describes procedures for repacking the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen box assemblies, replacing the placards, and re-identifying the assemblies.

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 539 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports the modification of the Class D airspace at Acadiana Regional Airport, New Iberia, LA, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (84 FR 28440; June 19, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0344 to Propose Amendment of the Class D Airspace, New Iberia, LA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 3, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace at Acadiana Regional Airport, New Iberia, LA, to within a 4.2-mile radius (reduced from a 4.4-mile radius); adding an extension within 1-mile each side of the 168° bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5-miles south of the airport; removing the city associated with the airport from the legal description to comply with FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and making an editorial change replacing the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement”.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the ACADI NDB, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport.

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, October 10, 2019.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special regulations as described in section (a), row (11) of the table to in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Ocean City Air Show from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on September 15, 2019. These actions are being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table to § 100.501, section (a), row (11), specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Ocean City, New Jersey, bounded by a line connecting the following points: latitude 39°15′57″ N, longitude 074°35′09″ W, thence northeast to latitude 39°16′34″ N, longitude 074°33′54″ W, thence southeast to latitude 39°16′17″ N, longitude 074°33′29″ W, thence southwest to latitude 39°15′40″ N, longitude 074°34′46″ W, thence northwest to point of origin, near Ocean City, NJ.

During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.100(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

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

On April 23, 2019, Duke Energy provided the Coast Guard with details concerning the upgrading of towers and replacement of power transmission lines crossing over the Cape Fear River near Wilmington, North Carolina, to be conducted from July 15, 2019, through October 31, 2019. Work will be done on two steel towers located at approximate positions 34°08′52″ N, 077°57′14″ W and 34°08′59″ N, 077°56′56″ W (NAD 1983), and the power transmission lines suspended between those towers. This upgrade process will require the complete closure of the navigation channel on multiple days during the stated upgrade period. In response, on May 24, 2019, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, NC (84 FR 24061) that proposed a safety zone within 100 yards of the power transmission line crossing. There, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the replacement of power transmission lines over the Cape Fear River. No comments were received during our comment solicitation period which ran through June 24, 2019. During the comment period, Duke Energy requested to change the work period to September through mid-December, instead of mid-July through the end of October, as proposed in the NPRM.

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 protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Cape Fear River while power transmission lines are replaced over the water.

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 (COTP) North Carolina has determined that potential safety hazards associated with power transmission line replacement work would be a concern for anyone transiting the Cape Fear River. The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the Cape Fear River while power transmission lines are replaced over the water.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 24, 2019. There is a change in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule, shifting the work period. Due to equipment delivery delays, Duke Energy changed the work period to September through mid-December 2019, instead of mid-July through the end of October, as proposed in the NPRM.

Additionally, in paragraph (a), “Location” we changed the word “areas” to “area.”

This rule establishes a safety zone on a portion of the Cape Fear River from September 11 through December 15, 2019, 2019, to be enforced while Duke Energy replaces power transmission lines over the river. Duke Energy reports its work crews will need to access the navigation channel for twelve eight-hour days, three days at a time, over four separate weeks in order to replace the power transmission lines. Due to the nature of the work and the hazards it presents to workers and the public, the COTP has identified the need to close that Cape Fear River in the vicinity of the power line crossing while this work is ongoing. On days the safety zone will be enforced, the effected section of the river will be closed from 6:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m. Currently, the planned enforcement dates are September 11th through 13th, September 24th through 26th, October 15th through 17th, and October 29th through 31st, 2019. These times and dates may change due to weather and equipment delivery changes. Exact dates and times will be announced by broadcast notice to mariners at least two days prior to each closure. This safety zone will include all navigable waters of the Cape Fear River within 100 yards of the power transmission line crossing, from approximate position 34°08′49″ N, 077°57′32″ W, then northeast to 34°09′07″ N, 077°56′41″ W, then south along the shoreline to 34°09′03″ N, 077°56′41″ W, then southwest to 34°08′42″ N, 077°57′28″ W, then north along the shoreline to the point of origin. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels with an air draft less than 30 feet will be permitted to pass through the safety zone approximately every two hours during enforcement, when directed by the Coast Guard or designated security vessels.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the proposed safety zone. Vessels will not be allowed to enter or transit a portion of the Cape Fear River during active power transmission line replacement as above. Specific enforcement dates and times for channel closures will be broadcast at least 48 hours in advance and vessels will be able to transit the Cape Fear River at all other times. The Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners and transmit a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 regarding the safety zone. Because this portion of the Cape Fear River is a high traffic area, we created this rule to accommodate smaller vessels so that vessels with an air draft less than 30 feet will be permitted to pass through the safety zone approximately every two hours during enforcement, when directed by the Coast Guard or designated security vessels.

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

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

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

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 Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 96 hours over 12 separate days that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of power transmission lines over the Cape Fear River near Wilmington, NC. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

The 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was unable to publish an NPRM and hold a comment period for this rulemaking due to the short time period between event planners notifying the Coast Guard of the event and publication of this security zone. It is necessary for the Coast Guard to establish this security zone for this event to ensure the appropriate level of protection for high-ranking United States officials and the public. Delaying the rulemaking to allow for opportunity for comment would be contrary to the security zone's intended objectives of protecting high-ranking United States officials and the public, as it would introduce vulnerability to their safety and security.

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 for the same reasons discussed above for forgoing notice and comment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that a security zone is necessary to protect high-ranking United States officials and the public, mitigate potential terrorist acts, and enhance public and maritime safety and security in order to safeguard life, property, and the environment on or near the navigable waters near the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel in Baltimore, MD.

This rule establishes a security zone from 11:59 a.m. on September 12, 2019, until 4 p.m. on September 14, 2019. The security zone will cover all navigable waters of the Inner Harbor, within the following coordinates: from Inner Harbor Pier 6 at position latitude 39°16′58.7″ N, longitude 076°36′16.0″ W; thence to latitude 39°16′55.3″ N, longitude 076°36′14.2″ W; thence to latitude 39°16′53.6″ N, longitude 076°36′12.5″ W; thence to the Harbor East Marina pier at latitude 39°16′52.9″ N, longitude 076°36′10.0″ W; thence northward along the pier to the shoreline at latitude 39°16′55.5″ N, longitude 076°36′10.2″ W; thence northward along the eastern shoreline of the Jones Falls canal to latitude 39°17′20.6″ N, longitude 076°36′19.9″ W; thence westward to latitude 39°17′20.5″ N, longitude 076°36′20.5″ W; thence southward along the western shoreline of the Jones Falls canal to latitude 39°16′58.1″ N, longitude 076°36′13.0″ W; thence westward along Inner Harbor Pier 6 to the point of origin. The duration of the zone is intended to protect high-ranking United States officials and the public in these navigable waters during activities associated with the U.S. House Republican Conference in Baltimore, MD.

Entry into this security zone is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. Except for public vessels, this rule temporarily requires all vessels in the designated security zone to immediately depart the security zone. Coast Guard personnel will be present to prevent the movement of unauthorized persons into the zone. Federal, state, and local agencies may assist the Coast Guard in the enforcement of this rule. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone and notify the public of changes in the status of the zone. Such notices will continue until the event is complete.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the security zone. This security zone will impact the waters affected by this rule for a 52-hour enforcement period. Vessels will be able to safely transit around this security zone, which would impact a small designated area of the Inner Harbor. In addition, notifications will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly. Such notifications will be updated as necessary to keep the maritime community informed of the status of the security zone.

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

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 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 Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone lasting only 52 hours in duration and is necessary to provide security for high-ranking United States officials and the public. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. 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. 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

This fireworks display safety zone is listed in the table to 33 CFR 165.506, section (a), row (2), except that instead of taking place on Labor Day as published, it is being moved two weeks later. Due to this date change, the Coast Guard is issuing a new temporary rule instead of a notice of enforcement of the published rule. Additionally, the Coast Guard is reducing the size of the safety zone from a circle with a 700 yard radius as published to a circle with a 150 yard radius around the launch site.

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 event. The rule must be in force by September 14, 2019. We are taking immediate action to ensure the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks display. 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 to be used in this September 14, 2019 (with September 15, 2019 as an alternate date for inclement weather), display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 150-yard radius of the launch site. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Indian River Bay near Long Neck, DE, during a fireworks display scheduled to take place between 8:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on September 14, 2019 (with September 15, 2019 as an alternate date for inclement weather). The fireworks will be set off from a pier over the bay at approximate position latitude 38°36′42″ N, longitude 075°08′18″ W. The safety zone will extend 150 yards around the launch site. 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 the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative grants authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone, 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 Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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, the 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) The enforcement period will last one and a half hour when vessel traffic is usually low; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels will still be able to enter or transit through the regulated area if authorized by the COTP Delaware Bay; (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (5) as noted in Section II above the Coast Guard is reducing the radius of the zone from 700 (as published in the table to 33 CFR 165.501, section (a), row (2)) to 150 yards.

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 IV.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.

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 Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination 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 safety zone that prohibits persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable water in the Delaware River, during a fireworks display lasting approximately one and a half hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A 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.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations 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

This swim event is listed in the table to 33 CFR 110.506, section (a), row (2), but because this year's course location has expanded beyond the previously published boundaries, we are issuing a new temporary rule to ensure coverage over the event location. Additionally, we are using “Safety Zone” authorities to issue this rule instead of the “Special Local Regulation” authorities under which we published the permanent rule for this event.

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 event. We are taking immediate action to ensure the safety of participants and the general public from hazards associated with non-participant vessel movement near the swim event. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by September 15, 2019.

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 the rule must be in effect by September 15, 2019, to mitigate the potential safety hazards associated with the swim event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). DelMoSports, LLC notified the Coast Guard that it will host the 4th Annual Ironman 70.3 Atlantic City Triathlon on September 15, 2019. The event will include a 1.2-mile swim with up to 2800 participants. The swim course is on the waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway in Atlantic City, NJ. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with this swim event scheduled for September 15, 2019, will be a safety concern for participants and for vessels operating within the specified waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect participants, spectators, and transiting vessels on certain waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 5:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on September 15, 2019. The safety zone will cover navigable waters of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway between the Albany Avenue (Highway 40) bridge in the southwest and New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway Daybeacon 204 in the northeast. Paragraph (a) of the regulation text below provides a detailed description of the location. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of participants and vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the swim event scheduled from 5:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 15, 2019. 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 the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative grants authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone, 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 Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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) The enforcement period will last five hours when vessel traffic is usually low; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain with the safety zone without authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, surrounding channels within the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterways will remain unaffected. Persons and vessels will be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) 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 (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and 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 Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 4 hours that will prohibit entry within certain navigable waters during a swim event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. 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:

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

On July 12, 2019 (84 FR 33198), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Hampshire. The NPRM proposed approval of the following items into the New Hampshire SIP: A single source NO X RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single source NO X RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and; a single source VOC RACT Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. EPA also proposed to withdraw from the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for the L.W. Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the Hampshire Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the Concord Litho Group, Incorporated. We note that although our NPRM mentioned that New Hampshire's September 5, 2018 submittal request included a request to withdraw from the SIP two RACT orders previously issued to the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), our NPRM did not propose action on that request. We will take action on the State's request regarding withdrawal of the RACT orders for PSNH in a future rulemaking. Other specific requirements of the State's submittals and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. We received one set of comments on the NPRM, which we have summarized and responded to in section II below.

We received one comment letter containing three comments on the NPRM. A summary of the comments, and our responses, follows.

Comment 1: The RACT Order for the Metal Works facility should not be approved because, by definition, RACT is the lowest achievable emission limit capable of being met by application of technological and economical control technology. Purchasing of emission reduction credits is not an emission limit and thus cannot be approved as RACT. EPA has no precedent that allows this and directly goes against settled case law. RACT must be an emission limit, and that limit must be met with technologically and economically feasible control equipment.

Response: Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA has long held that compliance with RACT can be achieved via the purchase of emission reduction credits (ERCs), and so does not need to be met exclusively by the establishment of emission limits applicable to all RACT-subject sources. In 1986, EPA issued its Emission Trading Policy Statement (ETPS). See 51 FR 43814; December 4, 1986. Subsequently, on April 7, 1994, pursuant to Section 182(g)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act, EPA promulgated its Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Rules ( see 59 FR 16690; April 7, 1994), and updated the EIP in 2001. 1 The ETPS and the EIP rules contain guidelines for the generation and use of ERCs. In New Hampshire's case, although the state has adopted an emission credit trading rule, Env-A 3100, Discrete Emission Reduction Trading Program, we have not approved that rule into the New Hampshire SIP. Therefore, we evaluate the generation and use of ERCs for RACT compliance in New Hampshire on a case by case basis. See, for example, our final rule for New Hampshire from November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66391). In this particular case, we agree with New Hampshire's determination that the ERCs to be used by the Metal Works facility meet the key aspects of the ETPS and EIP rules, namely that they are surplus, enforceable, permanent, and quantifiable, and therefore are appropriate for use in trading to meet RACT requirements.

Comment 2: For Polyonics, EPA is proposing to establish the sale of emission reduction credits as representing RACT, but the sale of emission credits cannot possibly represent the application of technological and economically feasible control technology. The same emission limit that applied before the order was amended should “continue to represent RACT”

Response: The commenter misinterprets our proposed action with regard to the Polyonics facility. The same emission limits within the pre-existing RACT order do continue to apply to the facility. The amendment to the Order just added the capability for the source to generate ERCs.

Comment 3: For L.W. Packard, Groveton Paperboard, Hampshire Chemical Corp, and Concord Litho Group, EPA states that these facilities “ceased operations” as of various dates in the past. EPA must only allow removal of these orders if the state has fully rescinded their operating permits and the facilities are unable to be reactivated under their current Title V operating permit.

Response: The Hampshire Chemical Corporation closed and surrendered its operating permit in 2004; the L.W. Packard Company and Groveton Paperboard both closed and surrendered their operating permits in 2008. On October 29, 2018, the Concord Litho Group requested that New Hampshire terminate its operating permit because it had ceased printing operations, which had been the subject of its operating permit requirements, and New Hampshire complied with that request. We note that our NPRM incorrectly indicated the facility had closed; other operations at the facility remain in existence, but due to their minimal emissions do not require issuance of a state operating permit or RACT order from the State.

EPA is approving the following RACT orders and RACT order withdrawals as revisions to the New Hampshire SIP: A single source NO X RACT Order for Schiller Station; a revised single source NO X RACT Order for Anheuser Busch; a revised single source VOC RACT Order for Metal Works Incorporated; a revised single source VOC RACT Order for Polyonics, Inc., and a single source VOC RACT Order for Complete Coverage Woodpriming, LLC. We are also withdrawing from the New Hampshire SIP previously approved RACT Orders for the L.W. Packard Company, the Groveton Paperboard Company, the Hampshire Chemical Company, the Waterville Valley Ski Resort, and the Concord Litho Group, Incorporated.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the following RACT Orders issued by New Hampshire: NO X RACT Order RO-003 for Schiller Station; NO X RACT Order ARD-05-001 for Anheuser Busch; VOC RACT Order ARD-05-001 for Metal Works Incorporated; VOC RACT Order ARD 07-004 for Polyonics, Inc., and; VOC RACT Order RO-0004 for Complete Coverage Wood Priming, LLC. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 2

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 12, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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 Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl .

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0514 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 November 12, 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-2018-0514, 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 October 18, 2018, 83 FR 52787 (FRL-9984-21), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E8684) by Interregional Research Project Number 4, IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. The petition requests the establishment of tolerances in 40 CFR 180.585 for residues of the herbicide pyraflufen-ethyl in or on the following commodities: cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.02 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A at 0.01 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm. Upon establishment of the above tolerances, the petitioner proposes to remove the existing tolerances for residues of pyraflufen-ethyl in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.04 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.01 ppm; olive at 0.01 ppm; and pistachio at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nichino America, Inc., 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 pyraflufen-ethyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyraflufen-ethyl follows.

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

Pyraflufen-ethyl exhibits relatively low acute toxicity for oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure. It is moderately irritating to the eye but is not a skin irritant or a dermal sensitizer.

In repeat-dose oral studies, the liver, kidney, and hematopoietic system are the target organs for pyraflufen-ethyl in the rat and the mouse. Adverse effects were not noted in the dog following oral exposure nor in the rat following dermal exposure. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity following acute and subchronic dosing. In the submitted immunotoxicity study, an immunosuppressant response was observed only at dose levels approaching the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility following pre-natal exposure to rats and rabbits in the developmental toxicity studies, nor following pre- and post-natal exposure to rats in the multi-generation reproduction study.

Pyraflufen-ethyl is classified as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the presence of liver tumors (hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas, and/or hepatoblastomas) in male and female mice. A linear low-dose extrapolation approach (Q 1 * of 3.32 × 10 −2 (milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) −1 ) is used to estimate human cancer risk.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pyraflufen-ethyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “SUBJECT: Pyraflufen-ethyl. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration of New Food Use on Hops and Conversions and Expansions of the Following Crop Groups: Nut, Tree, Group 14-12, Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12, Fruit, Small, Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F, Vegetable, Tuberous and Corm, Subgroup lC, Tropical and Subtropical, Small Fruit, Edible Peel Subgroup 23A and Cottonseed Subgroup 20C” at pages 28-35 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0514.

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

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyraflufen-ethyl used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III of the final rule published in the Federal Register of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13257) (FRL-9379-6).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyraflufen-ethyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.585. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyraflufen-ethyl in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for pyraflufen-ethyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA).

A highly refined chronic non-cancer exposure assessment was conducted. The Agency used residue estimates of 0.02 ppm for cottonseed oil ( 1/2 tolerance); residue values of 1/2 LOQ (limit of quantitation) (supported by field trial and monitoring data) for all other crops; and anticipated residues for livestock commodities calculated using updated dietary burdens based on field trial data for the livestock feed items. Percent crop treated (PCT) estimates and 2018 DEEM default processing factors were incorporated into the assessment.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that pyraflufen-ethyl should be classified as “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” and a linear approach has been used to quantify cancer risk.

A linear low-dose extrapolation approach is used to estimate human cancer risk (Q1* of 3.32 × 10 − 2 (mg/kg/day)−1). The exposure inputs for the cancer assessment were quantified using the same estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure, and a drinking water estimate of 0.672 ppb was used.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

The Agency used the following average percent crop treated estimates for the chronic non-cancer and cancer analyses: 1% for barley, beans (snap, bush, pole, and string), celery, corn, dry beans and peas, onions, peanuts, pecans, potatoes, pumpkins, sorghum, soybeans, squash, sunflowers, tomatoes, and walnuts; 2.5% for almonds, apples, canola, cherries, lettuce, olive, and peach; 5% for cotton, garlic, table grape, raisin, kiwi, pistachio, plum and prune; 10% for wine grape, and pear; 20% for apricot, and fig; and 40% for pomegranate. For all other commodities, 100% crop treated was used.

In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding up to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.

The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which pyraflufen-ethyl may be applied in a particular area.

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

The Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC version 1.52) was utilized to calculate all Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs). The EDWCs were incorporated directly into this dietary exposure assessment. Water residues were incorporated in the DEEM-FCID into the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources.”

Drinking water concentrations were estimated separately for chronic and cancer durations. The highest EDWCs resulted from groundwater for these durations.

For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.295 ppb for surface water and 0.672 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.268 ppb for surface water and 0.672 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both chronic and cancer assessments, the highest EDWC of 0.672 ppb was used to assess the dietary contribution from drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Pyraflufen-ethyl is currently registered for use by residential and commercial applicators on several residential/non-agricultural use sites; i.e., established ornamental turf lawns, parks, cemeteries, athletic fields, golf courses, sod farms, nurseries and ornamental plantings, and Christmas trees. There is the potential for residential (post-application) exposure pathways via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. Post-application dermal exposure (adults and children 1 to <2 years old) was not assessed for non-cancer effects since no toxicity was observed at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats.

Residential exposure is expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) in duration. The quantitative exposure assessment for residential non-cancer post-application exposures is based on incidental (hand-to-mouth) oral exposure (children 1 to <2 years old) from contact with residues on lawns and turf scenario. While not the only lifestage potentially exposed for these post-application scenarios, the lifestage that is included in the quantitative assessment is health protective for the exposures and risk estimates for any other potentially exposed lifestage. The registered application rate for pyraflufen-ethyl on lawns and turf was utilized in the assessing exposure.

A dermal and inhalation cancer exposure assessment was performed because dermal and inhalation exposure contributes to the overall cancer risk for pyraflufen-ethyl. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide .

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

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

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies with pyraflufen-ethyl. Developmental effects for both rats and rabbits occurred at either the same dose levels or were above the NOAELs and LOAELs for maternal toxicity. Similarly, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility of young rats in the pyraflufen-ethyl 2-generation rat reproduction study. The NOAEL for offspring effects was identical to that of the parental animals. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal exposure.

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

i. The toxicity database for pyraflufen-ethyl is complete.

ii. There is no indication that pyraflufen-ethyl is a neurotoxic chemical based on results of acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, and no neurotoxic effect was seen in other toxicity studies. Therefore, there are no concerns for neurotoxicity and no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. Developmental studies with pyraflufen-ethyl show no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero exposure. Similarly, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility of young rats in the pyraflufen-ethyl 2-generation rat reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed using PCT data, where available; refined residue concentrations (generally 1/2 LOQ); anticipated residues in livestock commodities; and default and empirical processing factors. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of adults and children as well as incidental oral exposure of children. In addition, the residential exposure assessment used surrogate study data, including conservative exposure assumptions based on Day 0 dermal/oral contact to turf and surfaces treated at the maximum application rate. These data are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risks to adults or children.

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

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

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups, including children 1 to 2 years old, the most highly exposed population subgroup. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of pyraflufen-ethyl is not expected.

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

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA concluded there is potential short-term exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl via dietary and residential exposure pathways. For adults, these pathways lead to exposure via oral and inhalation routes. EPA chose the most conservative scenario, children 1 to 2 years old with hand-to-mouth exposure from treated turf as well as the subpopulation with the highest chronic dietary exposure resulting in an aggregate MOE of 69,000. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraflufen-ethyl is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

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

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The aggregate cancer risk assessment for the general U.S. population considers exposure estimates from dietary consumption of pyraflufen-ethyl in food and drinking water and exposure through residential uses of pyraflufen-ethyl. Exposures from residential uses are based on the lifetime average daily dose and assume an exposure period of 2 days per year and 35 years of exposure over a 78-year lifetime. Average food and water exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl was used in the aggregate cancer assessment. Estimated cancer risk for the general U.S. population includes infants and children; therefore, a children's cancer risk estimate was not reported separately. For a description of the residential exposure scenarios considered in the aggregate assessment, see section 6.3. The aggregate cancer risk estimate for pyraflufen-ethyl is 1.1 × 10 −6 . The Agency generally considers risks up to 3 × 10 −6 to be within the negligible risk range and below the Agency's LOC. Therefore, the aggregate cancer risk estimate from pyraflufen-ethyl residues in food and drinking water is not of concern to EPA for the general U.S. population. This is a conservative estimate of pyraflufen-ethyl exposure based on the inputs to the dietary and residential exposure assessments.

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

Adequate enforcement methods are available. Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) analytical methods determine Metabolite E-1 as its methyl ester (E-15) and monitor two ion transitions each for pyraflufen-ethyl and the E-15 analyte. The methods also contain appendices that provide parameters for other detection schemes such as GC/electron-capture detection (ECD), GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detection (NPD), and GC/MS/MS.

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

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

The Codex has not established any MRLs for pyraflufen-ethyl.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-4-fluorophenoxy] acetate, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with these tolerances is to be determined by measuring only the sum of the parent pyraflufen-ethyl, and its acid metabolite, E-1,2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraflufen-ethyl in or on commodities: Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; Hop, dried cones at 0.02 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A at 0.01 ppm and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm. In addition, existing tolerances on Cotton, undelinted seed; Fruit, stone, group 12; Grape; Nut, tree, group 14; Olive; Pistachio; and Potato are removed as they are superseded by this regulation.

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), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Electro-Coatings, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 33046) on July 11, 2019.

The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was August 12, 2019. One public comment was received. The comment indicated that the EPA should report to the public the activities conducted to cleanup the Site and what will continue to be conducted to protect the public health and the environment, including reporting costs incurred and estimates of future costs. The EPA's response is that included in the docket were reports of the activities conducted at the Site including, the NOID, the FCOR, the latest Five-year review, and others. The docket also included the Remedial Action report, which included the requested available costs. The EPA believes the deletion action has been conducted in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, therefore the deletion of the Site from the NPL is appropriate. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, on www.regulations.gov, and in the local repositories listed above.

The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

This Final Rule is organized as follows:

This rulemaking is based on authority derived from the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act), as well as a series of appropriations acts that ultimately invalidated certain HOS provisions.

The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1), (2)). The HOS regulations concern the “maximum hours of service of employees” of both motor carriers and motor private carriers, as authorized by the 1935 Act.

The 1984 Act, as amended, provides broad concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles.” (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). The 1984 Act also requires that: “At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely. . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section . . .” (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)-(5)).

This final rule is a non-discretionary ministerial act to conform certain sections of the Agency's HOS rules governing the restart of a driver's 60- or 70-hour limit to a prior version of those limits restored by operation of law, as discussed below. Thus, there is no practical impact in any area identified under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).

In 2014, Congress suspended two provisions of the 2011 restart rule (the requirement for 2 off-duty periods from 1:00 to 5:00 a.m. and the limitation of the restart to once a week) and prohibited the use of appropriated funds to enforce them unless and until a naturalistic study required by the statute, and described in detail, found that the 2011 restart rule provided greater net operational, safety, health and fatigue benefits than the pre-2011 restart rule. In the meantime, the pre-2011 restart rule was restored to full effect (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. 113-235, Div. K, Title I, sec. 133, 128 Stat. 2130, 2711-2713 (Dec. 16, 2014)). The statute required both the Secretary of Transportation (whose authority in this area has been delegated to FMCSA) and the Inspector General (IG) to review and report to Congress the results of the study. Congress then extended the suspension and funding prohibition through fiscal year 2016 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, Div. L, Title I, sec. 133, 129 Stat. 2242, 2850 (Dec. 18, 2015)). This Act also expanded the factors that would need to be evaluated, requiring FMCSA and the IG to determine whether the naturalistic study showed that drivers operating under the 2011 restart rule achieved “statistically significant improvement in all outcomes related to safety, operator fatigue, driver health and longevity, and work schedules, in comparison to commercial motor vehicle drivers who operated under” the pre-2011 restart rule. Id.

This provision then was further amended to make clear that, if the study did not demonstrate such statistically significant improvements, “the 34-hour restart rule in operational effect on June 30, 2013 [ i.e., the pre-2011 rule] shall be restored to full force and effect on the date that the Secretary submits the final report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any other Act shall be available to implement, administer, or enforce the rule” (Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 114-254, Div. A, sec. 180, 130 Stat. 1005, 1016-1017 (Dec. 10, 2016)).

In January 2017, the final report required by the 2015 Appropriations Act was submitted for review to the IG, as required by statute. After reviewing the IG's findings, FMCSA's Deputy Administrator reported to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees that drivers using the 2011 restart rule experienced safety outcomes not significantly different from those using the pre-2011 restart rule. 1 On March 2, 2017, the IG confirmed this conclusion to Congress. Because the 2011 restart rule generated no statistically significant improvements in safety, it became void by operation of law and the pre-2011 restart rule was restored to full force and effect. Today's rule adopts the pre-2011 version of 49 CFR 395.3(c), conforming the language of the regulation to the statutory requirement. 2

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) specifically provides exceptions to its notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency finds there is good cause to dispense with them and incorporates “the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued.” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). Generally, good cause exists when an agency determines that notice and public comment procedures are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest ( id. ). Here, FMCSA finds that it is unnecessary to provide notice and public comment procedures because, as explained above, this final rule is a non-discretionary ministerial act to implement a statutory requirement. Therefore, in accordance with the APA, good cause exists for not providing notice and comment rulemaking procedures on this final rule.

Additionally, the APA allows agencies to make rules effective immediately with good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), instead of requiring publication at least 30 days prior to the effective date. For the reasons given above, FMCSA finds good cause to make this rule effective immediately.

Among the provisions included as part of the 2011 HOS rule were restrictions on the use of the 34-hour restart provision, limiting its use to once every 168 hours and requiring that a restart include two periods between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. These restrictions proved problematic for many drivers and carriers, adversely affecting their operations and generating significant controversy. As noted above, Congress suspended these restrictions, subject to a study of the effectiveness of the new rule. Specifically, Congress required the Secretary to initiate a “naturalistic study of the operational, safety, health and fatigue impacts of the restart provisions”; the law addressed the methodology of the study in detail and made clear that the 2011 HOS restart provisions would have no effect unless the study showed that those provisions had a greater net benefit compared to the pre-2011 HOS restart rule. 3 Subsequent legislation made clear that the study would need to show a statistically significant improvement in multiple factors enumerated in the legislation. The effectiveness study  4 and the March 2017 report to Congress  5 confirmed the finding that no statistically significant benefits accrued from the 2011 HOS restart rule. See discussion under II Legal Basis for this Rulemaking, above.

Thus, the limitation on use of the restart option to once every 168 hours and the requirement that a restart include the two periods from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. are no longer in effect; however, the fact that they still appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) causes confusion for stakeholders. Today's rule makes technical amendments to § 395.3, removing the two phrases in paragraph (c)(1) and (2) relating to the 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. requirement and removing paragraph (d) relating to the 168-hour limitation, consistent with the HOS rules concerning the 34-hour restart option currently in effect. Because the changes in this rule are ministerial, they will have no adverse effect on safety.

The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences among nations.

This action removes from § 395.3(c) both instances of the phrase “that includes two periods from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.” and restores the rule text of paragraph (c) to the Oct. 1, 2011, text. The change is ministerial and technical only and has no legal effect.

In addition, paragraph (d) is removed completely. It currently provides that “a driver may not take an off-duty period allowed by paragraph (c) of this section to restart the calculation of 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days until 168 or more consecutive hours have passed since the beginning of the last such off-duty period. When a driver takes more than one off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours within a period of 168 consecutive hours, he or she must indicate in the Remarks section of the record of duty status which such off-duty period is being used to restart the calculation of 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days.” The change also is ministerial and technical only and has no legal effect.

FMCSA performed an analysis of the impacts of this final rule and determined it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under these Orders. It is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.6 dated Dec. 20, 2018). This rule conforms 49 CFR 395.3 to statutory requirements and current practice by removing provisions that are not in effect, thus, not enforced, and does not result in costs or benefits to any regulated entity.

This rule has been designated as a deregulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs because it updates obsolete regulatory text.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis because, as discussed earlier in the Legal Basis for the Rulemaking section, this action is not subject to notice and public comment under section 553(b) of the APA.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Richard Clemente, listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this rule.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

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 $165 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2018 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this rule will not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This rule does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Nor does this rule modify the existing approved collection of information (OMB Control Number 2126-0001, HOS of Drivers Regulations, approved Jun. 13, 2016, through Jun. 30, 2019).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA determined that this rule does not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor does it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this rule preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this rule is not economically significant and does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

FMCSA reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5 U.S.C. 552a), requires the Agency to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. The assessment considers impacts of the rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and related matters. The FMCSA Privacy Officer has evaluated the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information and has evaluated protections and alternative information handling processes in developing the rule to mitigate potential privacy risks. FMCSA determined that this rule does not require the collection of individual personally identifiable information.

The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does not create privacy risk.

The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or disseminate information because of this rule.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

E.O. 13783 directs executive departments and agencies to review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, and to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources. In accordance with E.O. 13783, DOT prepared and submitted a report to the Director of OMB that provides specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency action that burden domestic energy production. This rule has not been identified by DOT under E.O. 13783 as potentially alleviating unnecessary burdens on domestic energy production.

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

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (note following 15 U.S.C. 272) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards will be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, Mar. 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph 6.b. This Categorical Exclusion addresses minor corrections such as those found in this rulemaking; therefore, preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is not necessary. The Categorical Exclusion determination is available for inspection or copying in docket FMCSA-2004-19608.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, unless the Agency finds good cause that an ANPRM is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, or conduct a negotiated rulemaking when it engages in certain rulemakings. These requirements pertain to a proposed rulemaking likely to result in a “major rule.”  6 Because this rulemaking does not involve issuance of a proposed rule, and today's final rule is not a “major rule,” these requirements are not applicable.

In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 395 to read as follows.

Regulations governing the red hake fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The small-mesh multispecies fishery is managed primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan. The regulations describing the process to adjust inseason commercial possession limits of northern red hake are described in § 648.86(d)(4) and § 648.90(b)(5). These regulations require the NMFS Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, to reduce the northern red hake possession limit from 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) to the incidental limit of 400 lb (181 kg) when landings have been projected to reach or exceed 37.9 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL), unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent the TAL from being reached. The final rule implementing the small-mesh multispecies specifications for 2018-2020 (83 FR 27713; June 14, 2018) set the northern red hake inseason adjustment threshold for the 2019 fishing year at 228,941 lb (103,846 kg); 37.9 percent of the northern red hake TAL for the year.

Based on commercial landings data reported through September 3, 2019, the northern red hake fishery is projected to reach 37.9 percent of the TAL on September 4, 2019. It is not expected that this reduction will prevent the TAL from being reached. Using this projection, NMFS is required to reduce the commercial northern red hake possession limit to prevent the TAL from being exceeded. Therefore, effective September 9, 2019, no person may possess on board or land more than 400 lb (181 kg) of northern red hake per trip for the remainder of the fishing year ( i.e., through April 30, 2020). Vessels that are currently on a trip when this reduction becomes effective may retain northern red hake up to the prior possession limit of 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) for the completion of that trip.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action reduces the per-trip possession limit for northern red hake to the incidental limit of 400 lb (181 kg) until April 30, 2020, under current small-mesh multispecies fishery regulations. The regulations at § 648.86(d) require such action to ensure that commercial small-mesh multispecies vessels do not exceed the TAL set for the northern red hake stock. If implementation of this reduction is delayed, the northern red hake TAL for this fishing year may be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator further finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reason stated above.