41006 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The SJVUAPCD adopted its 2014 RACT SIP on 

June 19, 2014. 

2CARB’s May 4, 2018 transmittal letter contained 

a public draft version of the Supplement to the 2014 

RACT SIP along with a request that the EPA provide 

parallel processing of the documents concurrently 

with the state’s public process. See footnote 1 in our 

May 17, 2018 proposed rule. 

3See Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, 

Appendix B. 

4On June 21, 2018, the SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board adopted ‘‘Revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to Address Federal Clean 

Air Act Requirements for Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT)’’. Appendix A: ‘‘J.R. 

Simplot Permit Conditions’’ and Appendix B: 

‘‘Negative Declarations’’, as contained in the 

adopted document, are substantially similar to the 

versions contained in the District’s parallel 

processing request which the EPA proposed to 

apply to quantities of the substance after 

they have been reacted (cured). 

(2) The significant new uses are: 

(i) Protection in the workplace. 

Requirements as specified in 

§ 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), when 

determining which persons are 

reasonably likely to be exposed as 

required for § 721.63(a)(1) engineering 

control measures (e.g., enclosure or 

confinement of the operation, general 

and local ventilation) or administrative 

control measures (e.g., workplace 

policies and procedures) shall be 

considered and implemented to prevent 

exposure, where feasible, (b) 

(concentration set at 1.0%), and (c). 

(ii) Hazard communication. 

Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a) 

through (e) (concentration set at 1.0%), 

(f), (g)(1) (irritation), 

(photosensitization), (g)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), 

(v), and (g)(5). 

(iii) Industrial, commercial, and 

consumer activities. Requirements as 

specified in § 721.80(f) and (q). 

(b) Specific requirements. The 

provisions of subpart A of this part 

apply to this section except as modified 

by this paragraph (b). 

(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping 

requirements as specified in 

§ 721.125(a) through (i) are applicable to 

manufacturers and processors of this 

substance. 

(2) Limitations or revocation of 

certain notification requirements. The 

provisions of § 721.185 apply to this 

section. 

(3) Determining whether a specific use 

is subject to this section. The provisions 

of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) of this section. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17348 Filed 8–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0272; FRL–9981–09– 

Region 9] 

Air Plan Approval; California; San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Demonstration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern the District’s 2014 

demonstration regarding Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). We are also taking final 

action to approve into the California SIP 

the following documents that help 

support the District’s RACT 

demonstration: SJVUAPCD’s 

supplement to its 2014 RACT SIP 

demonstration, which contains 

SJVUAPCD’s negative declarations 

where the District concludes it has no 

sources subject to certain Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

documents and relevant permit 

conditions to implement RACT level 

requirements for J.R. Simplot’s Nitric 

Acid plant in Helm, California (CA); and 

SJVUAPCD’s 2016 Ozone Plan for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard—Chapter 

3.4 and Appendix C only. We are 

approving local SIP revisions to 

demonstrate that RACT is implemented 

as required under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the ‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: This rule will be effective on 

September 17, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0272. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22908), the 

EPA proposed to approve SJVUACPD’s 

‘‘2014 Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Demonstration for 

the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan (SIP)’’ (2014 RACT SIP), submitted 

to the EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) on July 18, 

2014,1 for approval as a revision to the 

California SIP. 

In addition to the 2014 RACT SIP, our 

May 17, 2018 proposed rule was also 

based on our evaluation of the public 

draft version of SJVUAPCD’s 

‘‘Supplement to the 2014 Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

2008 8-hour Ozone Standard’’ 

(Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP) that 

was transmitted by CARB on May 4, 

2018, along with a request for parallel 

processing.2 The District’s Supplement 

to the 2014 RACT SIP contained 

relevant RACT permit conditions in a 

permit to operate for J.R. Simplot’s 

Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA, and 

negative declarations where the District 

concluded it had no sources subject to 

the following CTG source categories: 

Surface coating of insulation of 

magnetic wire; manufacture of 

synthesized pharmaceutical products; 

manufacture of pneumatic rubber tires; 

leaks from synthetic organic chemical 

polymer and resin manufacturing 

equipment; volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from manufacture of 

high-density polyethylene, 

polypropylene and polyester resins; 

VOC emissions from air oxidation 

processes in synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI); VOC 

emissions from reactor processes and 

distillation operations in SOCMI; and 

surface coating operations at 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities.3

We indicated that we would not take 

final action on the Supplement to the 

2014 RACT SIP until CARB submitted 

the final adopted version to the EPA as 

a SIP revision. On June 21, 2018, the 

SJVUAPCD held a public hearing and 

adopted the Supplement to the 2014 

RACT SIP.4 On June 29, 2018, CARB 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 41007 

approve on May 17, 2018. We will reference the 

District’s June 21, 2018 adopted document as 

‘‘Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP’’ to maintain 

consistency with how this action was referenced in 

our May 17, 2018 proposed rulemaking. 

5As explained in our May 17, 2018 proposed 

rulemaking, the EPA is following its regulatory 

procedures for parallel processing. See 40 CFR part 

51, appendix V. These procedures allow the EPA 

to approve a state’s submittal, following parallel 

state and federal comment periods, provided the 

final provision adopted at the state level has no 

significant changes from the proposal. 

submitted the Supplement to the 2014 

RACT SIP to the EPA for approval as a 

revision to the California SIP.5 The final 

adopted version of the Supplement to 

the 2014 RACT SIP includes nonsubstantive changes from the public 

draft version that was the basis for our 

May 17, 2018 proposed rule. These 

changes include streamlining J.R. 

Simplot’s introductory section listing 

the plant’s major equipment to just state 

‘‘Nitric Acid Plant’’; restoring a permit 

condition that EPA Reference Method 7 

will be used to determine compliance 

with oxides of nitrogen (NOX) limits; 

and removing reference citations to a 

local rule and federal regulations that 

were inadvertently left in the permit. 

The NOX emission limits remain 

unchanged from the version of the 

permit included in our May 17, 2018 

proposed rule. In addition, when 

comparing the public draft version 

included in our May 17, 2018 proposed 

rule and the final version adopted by 

the District on June 21, 2018, we noted 

minor editorial changes in the text 

preceding the list of negative 

declarations. The primary substance of 

the District’s negative declarations, that 

is, recertification of three prior negative 

declarations, and the adoption of five 

new negative declarations, remain 

unchanged. We therefore consider these 

editorial changes to also be nonsubstantive. On July 11, 2018, we found 

the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, 

including the relevant operating permit 

conditions to implement NOX RACT for 

J.R. Simplot’s Nitric Acid Plant in Helm, 

CA, and several negative declarations, 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V. 

We are also approving portions of 

SJVUAPCD’s ‘‘2016 Ozone Plan for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard’’ (2016 

Ozone Plan), which help to supplement 

the District’s 2014 RACT SIP. The plan 

was adopted by the District on June 16, 

2016, and submitted by CARB to the 

EPA on August 24, 2016, as a revision 

to the California SIP. Specifically, as 

discussed in our May 17, 2018 proposed 

rule, Chapter 3.4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan 

states that ‘‘the District updated the 

RACT evaluation and included VOC 

sources in the evaluation in Appendix 

C.’’ Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan, 

which is titled, ‘‘Stationary and Area 

Source Control Strategy Evaluations,’’ 

includes evaluations of individual rules 

for RACT. We are only approving 

Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C of the 2016 

Ozone Plan in order to demonstrate 

VOC RACT for all applicable sources for 

the 2008 NAAQS. 

As discussed in our proposed rule, 

the District’s 2014 RACT SIP contains 

its analysis of NOX RACT for the 2008 

NAAQS. For more background 

information and a more extensive 

discussion of the 2014 RACT SIP, the 

Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, 

Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C of the 2016 

Ozone Plan, and our evaluation of them 

for compliance with CAA RACT 

requirements, please see our proposed 

rule and related technical support 

document. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. During 

this period, we received one anonymous 

comment that was outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. The comment was not 

germane to our evaluation of the 

submitted SJVUAPCD documents to 

demonstrate that the District’s stationary 

sources are subject to RACT 

requirements. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the submitted 

documents as described in our proposed 

action. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is 

fully approving the following 

documents into the California SIP: 

SJVUAPCD’s 2014 RACT SIP; the 

Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP 

including relevant permit conditions for 

J.R. Simplot’s Nitric Acid Plant in Helm, 

CA and negative declarations for the 

CTG source categories: Surface coating 

of insulation of magnetic wire; 

manufacture of synthesized 

pharmaceutical products; manufacture 

of pneumatic rubber tires; leaks from 

synthetic organic chemical polymer and 

resin manufacturing equipment; VOC 

emissions from manufacture of highdensity polyethylene, polypropylene 

and polyester resins; VOC emissions 

from air oxidation processes in SOCMI; 

VOC emissions from reactor processes 

and distillation operations in SOCMI; 

and surface coating operations at 

shipbuilding and ship repair facilities; 

and the 2016 Ozone Plan—only Chapter 

3.4 and Appendix C. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

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 certain 

permit conditions for the J.R. Simplot 

Nitric Acid Plan in Helm, CA and 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. The EPA has 

made, and will continue to make, these 

documents available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region IX Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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, the 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 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
41008 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 16, 2018. 

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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 12, 2018. 

Michael Stoker, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(449)(ii)(D), 

(c)(496)(ii)(B), and (c)(507) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(449) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). 

(1) SJVUAPCD ‘‘2014 Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration for the 8-Hour Ozone 

State Implementation Plan (SIP),’’ dated 

June 19, 2014, as adopted by the 

SJVUAPCD on June 19, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(496) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). 

(1) SJVUAPCD ‘‘2016 Ozone Plan for 

2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard,’’ dated 

June 16, 2016, Chapter 3.4 and 

Appendix C only, as adopted by the 

SJVUAPCD on June 16, 2016. 

* * * * * 

(507) New regulations for the 

following APCD were submitted on June 

29, 2018 by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD). 

(1) Permit #C–705–3–19, J.R. Simplot 

Company, Nitric Acid Plant, Helm, CA, 

adopted by the SJVUAPCD, Resolution 

No.18–06–14, June 21, 2018. 

(ii) Additional materials. (A) San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD). 

(1) SJVUAPCD ‘‘Appendix B Negative 

Declarations For Proposed Revision to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

Address Federal Clean Air Act 

Requirements for Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) June 21, 

2018,’’ containing negative declarations, 

as adopted by the SJVUAPCD on June 

21, 2018. 

■ 3. Section 52.222 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(8)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.222 Negative declarations. 

(a) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(iii) The following negative 

declarations for the 2008 NAAQS were 

adopted by the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District on 

June 21, 2018, and submitted to the EPA 

on June 29, 2018. 

NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS FOR THE 2008 OZONE NAAQS 

CTG document No. Title 

EPA–450/2–77–033 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume IV: 

Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. 

EPA–450/2–78–029 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. 

EPA–450/2–78–030 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. 

EPA–450/3–83–006 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. 

EPA–450/3–83–008 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density 

Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. 

EPA–450/3–84–015 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. 

EPA–450/4–91–031 ........................................................... Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 41009 

NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS FOR THE 2008 OZONE NAAQS—Continued 

CTG document No. Title 

EPA–453/R–94–032 ........................................................... Alternative Control Technology Document—Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities 

61 FR 44050 8/27/96 ......................................................... Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface 

Coating). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–17714 Filed 8–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 6101 and 6102 

[CBCA Case 2018–61–1; Docket No. 2018– 

0006; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AK02 

Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; 

Rules of Procedure for Contract 

Disputes Act Cases 

AGENCY: Civilian Board of Contract 

Appeals; General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Board of 

Contract Appeals (Board) amends its 

rules of procedure for cases arising 

under the Contract Disputes Act, and for 

disputes between insurance companies 

and the Department of Agriculture’s 

Risk Management Agency in which 

decisions of the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation are brought before the 

Board under the Federal Crop Insurance 

Act. The Board’s current rules were 

issued in 2008 and were last amended 

in 2011. After considering the one 

responsive comment received, the Board 

now promulgates its final rules of 

procedure. 

DATES: September 17, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

J. Gregory Parks, Chief Counsel, Civilian 

Board of Contract Appeals, 1800 M 

Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 

20036; at 202–606–8787; or email at 

greg.parks@cbca.gov, for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

the status or publication schedules, 

contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 

202–501–4755. Please cite BCA Case 

2018–61–1. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Board was established within 

GSA by section 847 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006, Public Law 109–163. Board 

members are administrative judges 

appointed by the Administrator of 

General Services under 41 U.S.C. 

7105(b)(2). Among its other functions, 

the Board hears and decides contract 

disputes between Government 

contractors and most civilian Executive 

agencies under the Contract Disputes 

Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101–7109, and its 

implementing regulations, and disputes 

pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance 

Act, 7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., between 

insurance companies and the 

Department of Agriculture’s Risk 

Management Agency (RMA) involving 

actions of the Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC). 

The Board’s rules of procedure for 

Contract Disputes Act cases and Federal 

Crop Insurance Act cases were adopted 

in May 2008 (73 FR 26947) and were 

last amended in August 2011 (76 FR 

50926). The Board published in the 

Federal Register at 83 FR 13211, March 

28, 2018, proposed, amended rules of 

procedure along with a notice inviting 

comments on those rules. This notice 

announced the intention to promulgate 

final rules, following the Board’s review 

and consideration of all comments. 

The period for comments closed on 

May 29, 2018. The Board has considered 

all comments received, revising the 

proposed rules, in part, as explained in 

part B below, and now promulgates its 

final rules of procedure. These rules 

simplify and modernize access to the 

Board by establishing a preference for 

electronic filing, increase conformity 

between the Board’s rules and the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

streamline the wording of the Board’s 

rules, and clarify current rules and 

practices. In addition, the time for filing 

is amended from 4:30 p.m. to midnight 

Eastern Time, and the stated monetary 

limitations for electing the accelerated 

and small claims procedures are deleted 

and replaced with references to the 

requirements stated in the Contract 

Disputes Act. 

B. Comments and Changes 

The Board received comments from 

two commenters. Commenters included 

one attorney from a Federal agency and 

one anonymous source. Comments from 

the anonymous source concerned 

matters wholly unrelated to the 

proposed rule, and the concerns noted 

by the attorney were already addressed 

in the proposed rule. The Board 

carefully considered the comments but 

has not revised its proposed rule based 

on issues the commenters raised. The 

final rule incorporates minor, nonsubstantive corrections to the proposed 

rule. The corrections are addressed 

below. 

Part 6101 

Sections 6101.1, 6101.3, 6101.4, 

6101.12, and 6101.23 are amended to 

correct spelling, grammatical, or spacing 

errors; include a cross-reference; and 

clarify a phrase. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

GSA certifies that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 602 et seq., and 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

Public Law 104–121, because the final 

rule does not impose any additional 

costs on small or large businesses. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., does not apply 

because this final rule does not impose 

any information collection requirements 

that require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

E. Congressional Review Act 

The final rule is exempt from 

Congressional review under Public Law 

104–121 because it relates solely to 

agency organization, procedure, and 

practice and does not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 

F. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES