        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [CA 210-0173; FRL-6897-1]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Lake County Air Quality Management District, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the transfer of gasoline to storage tanks or to vehicle tanks. EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval without potential sanctions of Lake County Air Quality Management District (LCAQMD) Section (Rule) 439.5 and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) Rule 1002. EPA is also proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval with potential sanctions of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Rule 8-7, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Rule 449, and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4622. The intended effect of the limited approvals and limited disapprovals is to regulate emissions of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA's final action on this proposed rule will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received in writing on or before December 14, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

          You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions at the following locations:

          California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 “L” Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
          Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
          Lake County Air Quality Management District, 883 Lakeport Boulevard, Lakeport, CA 95453.
          Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
          Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 Jackson Road, Sacramento, CA 95826.
          San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Applicability
        The rules being proposed for limited approval and limited disapproval into the California SIP are LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5, Retail Gasoline Service Stations, MBUAPCD Rule 1002, Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, BAAQMD Rule 8-7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; SMAQMD Rule 449, Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks; and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, Gasoline Transfer into Vehicle Fuel Tanks. These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on May 18, 1998, June 3, 1999, March 23, 2000, May 18, 1998, and August 21, 1998, respectively.
        II. Background

        On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act (1977 CAA or pre-amended Act), that included the San Francisco Bay Area, Monterey Bay Area, Sacramento Metro Area, and the San Joaquin Valley Area. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, that the above district's portions of the SIP were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 CAA were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
        In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the requirement that nonattainment areas fix their deficient Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a deadline of May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those deficiencies. Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.1

            1 Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
            Federal Register
            Notice (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control technique guidelines (CTGs).

        In section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, Congress required the states to submit a SIP revision to require all owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems in moderate or higher ozone nonattainment areas to install a gasoline vapor recovery system. The EPA Administrator would issue gasoline vapor recovery guidance as appropriate as to the effectiveness of such a system.
        The Monterey Bay Area, San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento Metro Area, and San Joaquin Valley Area were designated nonattainment; therefore, these areas were subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline. The San Francisco Bay Area 2
           was later designated attainment and then redesignated nonattainment under subpart 1, part D, of the CAA. Subpart 1 nonattainment areas must meet the requirements of RACT according to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and must meet the requirements of the gasoline vapor recovery guidance according to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA. The Sacramento Metro Area and the San Joaquin Valley Area 3
           subpart 2 nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher must meet the requirements of RACT according to section 182(a)(2)(A) and the gasoline vapor recovery guidance according to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA. The Monterey Bay Area 4
           has since been redesignated as a maintenance attainment area. This area must implement all measures in the SIP before redesignation as attainment, according to section 175A(d) of the CAA. Control of emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities is not a measure that is relied on to achieve or maintain attainment; therefore, the Monterey Bay Area is not subject to the requirements of RACT, including gasoline vapor recovery guidance. Lake County Air Basin was designated attainment and is not subject to the requirements of RACT, including gasoline vapor recovery guidance.

            2 On July 10, 1998(63 FR 37258), EPA published the final rule redesignating the San Francisco Bay Area to nonattainment with the federal 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation was authorized under the general nonattainment provisions of subpart 1, part D, title I, of the CAA. The Bay Area, therefore, does not have a subpart 2 classification. When comparing air quality in the Bay Area to the traditional subpart 2 classification system, the Bay Area's design value is equivalent to that of a moderate nonattainment area.

            3 The Sacramento Metro Area and the San Joaquin Valley Area retained their designation and were classified by operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The San Joaquin Valley Area is classified as serious. On April 25, 1995, EPA published a final rule granting the State's request to reclassify the Sacramento Metro Area to severe from serious (60 FR 20237).

            4 On January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2597), EPA published a direct final rule redesignating Monterey Bay Area as maintenance attainment for ozone.

        This document addresses EPA's proposed action for LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5, Retail Gasoline Service Stations, adopted on July 15, 1997; MBUAPCD 1002, Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, adopted on April 21, 1999; BAAQMD Rule 8-7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, adopted on November 17, 1999; SMAQMD Rule 449, Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, adopted on April 3, 1997; and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, Gasoline Transfer into Vehicle Fuel Tanks, adopted on June 18, 1998. These rules were submitted on May 18, 1998, June 3, 1999, March 28, 2000, May 18, 1998, and August 21, 1998, respectively. These rules were found to be complete on July 17, 1998, June 24, 1999, May 19, 2000, July 17, 1998, and October 2, 1998, respectively, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. 5
           LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5 and MBUAPCD Rule 1002, are being proposed for limited approval and limited disapproval without sanctions. BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 are being proposed for limited approval and limited disapproval with sanctions.

            5 EPA adopted completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

        The BAAQMD and LCAQMD rules control the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the transfer of gasoline into fuel storage tanks and into vehicle fuel tanks. The MBUAPCD, SMAQMD, and SJVUAPCD rules control the emission of VOCs from the transfer of gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These rules were originally adopted as part of these Districts' effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(3) CAA requirements.
        The following is EPA's evaluation and proposed action for these rules.
        III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
        In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements, which forms the basis for today's action, appears in various EPA policy guidance documents including those listed below:
        • Model Volatile Organic Compound Rule for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT),” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (June 1992).
        • Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
          Federal Register (52 FR 45044) (The Blue Book).
        Among the requirements for a VOC rule for the nonattainment areas of BAAQMD, SMAQMD, and SJVUAPCD is that it must be enforceable and meet the requirements of RACT. A VOC rule for LCAQMD attainment area must be enforceable but need not meet the requirements of RACT. A rule for a maintenance attainment area must be enforceable and must implement all measures in the SIP before redesignation as attainment, according to section 175A(d). Control of emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities is not a measure that is relied on to achieve attainment in MBUAPCD; therefore, the MBUAPCD is not subject to the requirements of RACT.
        For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing RACT rules for nonattainment areas, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents which specify the minimum requirements that a rule must contain in order to be approved into the SIP. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to “fix-up” their RACT rules. See section 182(a)(2)(A). There is no applicable CTG for transfer of gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks. However, EPA issued the following for gasoline vapor recovery guidance:
        • Draft Model Rule, Gasoline Dispensing facility—Stage II Vapor Recovery, (August 17, 1992).
        • Draft Gasoline Vapor Recovery Guidelines, (April 24, 2000).

        In evaluating RACT, EPA also considered information published since the 1992 Draft Model Rule, including documents associated with development of CARB's Enhanced Vapor Recovery Guidelines (March 23, 2000) and South coast air Quality Management District's Draft Rule 461, Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing (December 15, 1999). EPA, Region IX, has summarized RACT requirements in the Draft Gasoline Vapor Recovery Guidelines (April 24, 2000). In general, these guidance documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable, meet the requirements of RACT, and maintain or strengthen the SIP.
        There is currently no version of LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5 in the SIP. There are no versions on which EPA has not acted. The submitted rule includes the following provisions:
        • The transfer of gasoline to a storage tank (Phase I) and the transfer of gasoline to a vehicle fuel tank shall have a submerged fill pipe and CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment.
        • The transfer of gasoline to a vehicle fuel tank (Phase II) shall have CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment.
        • The dispensing equipment shall have appropriate warning signs and a hold open latch.
        • The rule contains various exemptions for gasoline stations less than certain minimum sizes.
        On February 9, 1996, 61 FR 4892, EPA approved into the SIP a version of MBUAPCD Rule 1002. There are no versions on which EPA has not acted. The submitted rule includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:
        • Section 3.1 continues to require that vapor recovery equipment be CARB-certified, but removes the requirement that the vapor recovery equipment prevents 95% of the gasoline vapors from entering the atmosphere.

        • Subsection 3.2.2 adds the requirement that equipment be tested in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 17, sections 94000 et seq.

        • Section 3.4 is added to describe the 7-day period allowed to correct equipment not in good working order because of defects not specified by CARB pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 41960.2(c).
        • Part 4 separates the permitting requirements for new, modified, and existing gasoline dispensing systems.
        On March 22, 1995, 60 FR 15062, EPA approved into the SIP a version of BAAQMD Rule 8-7. There are no versions on which EPA has not acted. The submitted rule includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:
        • Numerous new standards were added for Phase I and II vapor recovery equipment.
        • Numerous definitions were added for clarity.
        • Performance tests of newly installed or modified equipment are required according to the required Authority to Construct.
        • New performance test methods were added.
        • Recordkeeping requirements were added.
        On January 23, 1996, 61 FR 1716, EPA approved into the SIP a version of SMAQMD Rule 449. There are no versions on which EPA has not acted. SMAQMD submitted Rule 449 includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:
        • Section 113 deletes the obsolete exemption for fueling fork lifts.
        • Section 305 adds a modification to prohibit hold open latches, if prohibited by the local Fire Marshal.
        • Section 306 requires that the Dynamic Back Pressure Test for gasoline dispensing nozzles must be passed. Testing could be more frequent than five years, if required by the CARB.
        On May 2, 1996, 61 FR 19555, EPA approved into the SIP a version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 that had been adopted by SJVUAPCD on February 17, 1994. There are no versions on which EPA has not acted. The submitted includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:
        • Section 5.11, which requires that all liquid removal devices be maintained to remove at least five milliliters per gallon, is added.
        • Section 6.2.2, which required that certified vapor recovery systems be tested with 60 days of installation or major modification, is deleted.
        • Section 6.3.1 has added the requirement that the APCO, CARB, and EPA all approve test methods on vapor recovery systems on which referenced test methods are precluded.
        • Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 have three test methods added.

        EPA has evaluated LCAQMD submitted Rule 439.5 for an ozone attainment area for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions strengthen the SIP by adding a rule to reduce gasoline vapor emissions during the transfer of gasoline in Phases I and II by the use of CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment. Although LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5 will strengthen the SIP, this rule still contains the following enforceability-related deficiencies that must be corrected pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(a)(3) requirements of the CAA before the rule will qualify for full approval:
        • The rule should reference the specific EPA-approved test methods to be used for performance tests or reverification of performance tests for, at a minimum, a static leak test, a dynamic back pressure test, an air-to-liquid volume ratio test, and a liquid removal rate test.
        • Performance test records, reverification of performance test records, maintenance records and throughput records (if an exemption is claimed) should be maintained for at least two years.
        EPA has evaluated MBUAPCD Rule 1002 for a maintenance attainment area for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions strengthen the SIP with clarifications, by requiring the testing of vapor recovery equipment, and by requiring that defects be repaired in seven days. Although the rule will strengthen the SIP, this rule still contains the following enforceability-related deficiencies that must be corrected pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(a)(3) requirements of the CAA before the rule will qualify for full approval:
        • Paragraph 3.2.2 contains obsolete references, repealed on July 11, 1996, for the vapor recovery equipment to be operated, tested, and maintained.
        • The rule should reference specific EPA-approved test methods for performance tests and reverification of performance tests to be used for, at a minimum, a static leak test, a dynamic back pressure test, an air-to-liquid volume ratio test, and a liquid removal rate test.
        • Paragraph 3.3 references “pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, section 41960.2(c),” but this reference does not list any vapor recovery equipment defects. The listing of vapor recovery equipment defects in CCR, title 17, section 94006, could be referenced or the defects could be listed specifically in the rule.
        • Performance test records, reverification of performance test records, maintenance records and throughput records (if an exemption is claimed) should be maintained for at least two years.
        EPA has evaluated BAAQMD Rule 8-7 for section 1 ozone nonattainment area for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions strengthen the SIP by adding new standards, adding test methods, adding recordkeeping requirements, and adding performance tests on new or modified equipment. Although the rule will strengthen the SIP, this rule still contains the following enforceability-related deficiencies that must be corrected pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(a)(3) requirements of the CAA before the rule will qualify for full approval:
        • Paragraphs 302.3 and 306 require maintaining equipment free of defects as defined in California Health and Safety Code 41960.2(c). California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 17, section 94006 should be referenced instead, because it contains a list of the specific defects.
        • Reverification of the performance tests of the vapor recovery system originally required by the CARB Executive Order should be performed more frequently, because studies have shown poor compliance with performance standards. EPA recommends once every six months or, if In-Station Diagnostics are used, once every two years.
        EPA has evaluated SMAQMD Rule 449 for a severe ozone nonattainment area for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions strengthen the SIP by removing an obsolete exemption for fueling forklifts, by requiring the passing of the Dynamic Back Pressure Test, and by improving clarity. Although the rule will strengthen the SIP, this rule still contains the following enforceability-related deficiencies that must be corrected pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(a)(3) requirements of the CAA before the rule will qualify for full approval:
        • Section 306 should reference the specific EPA-approved test method to be used for performance tests and reverification of performance tests for an air-to-liquid volume ratio test and a liquid removal rate test.
        • Performance testing of vapor recovery equipment should start within 30 days of completion of construction of vapor recovery equipment.
        • Reverification of the performance tests of the vapor recovery system originally required by the CARB Executive Order should be performed more frequently, because studies have shown poor compliance with performance standards. EPA recommends once every six months or, if In-Station Diagnostics are used, once every two years.
        • Section 502 contains no recordkeeping period. We recommend that maintenance records, performance test records, reverification of performance test records, and gasoline throughput records (if an exemption is claimed) be kept for at least two years.
        EPA has evaluated SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 for an ozone nonattainment area for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions strengthen the SIP by adding three test procedures to the rule and by requiring a five milliliter per gallon limit for liquid removal devices. Although the rule will strengthen the SIP, this rule still contains the following enforceability-related deficiencies that must be corrected pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(a)(3) requirements of the CAA before the rule will qualify for full approval:
        • Section 5.4.11 contains a reference to CCR, title 17, section 94001 for the certification procedure that CARB uses for vapor recovery equipment. The correct reference is CCR, title 17, section 94011.
        • Section 6.1 contains no recordkeeping period. We recommend that maintenance records and reverification of performance test records be kept for at least two years.
        • Section 6.2.2 in the SIP rule, which required that certified vapor recovery systems be tested within 60 days of installation or major modification, was deleted from the submitted rule. This is less stringent than the SIP-approved rule. Performance testing of vapor recovery equipment should start within a defined period of completion of construction of vapor recovery equipment.
        • Section 6.3.1 should reference the specific EPA-approved test method to be used for performance tests and reverification of performance tests for an air-to-liquid volume ratio test.
        • Reverification of the performance tests of the vapor recovery system originally required by the CARB Executive Order should be performed more frequently, because studies have shown poor compliance with performance standards. EPA recommends once every six months or, if In-Station Diagnostics are used, once every two years.

        A detailed discussion of rule deficiencies can be found in the Technical Support Documents for LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5, MBUAPCD Rule 1002, BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, which are available from the U.S. EPA, Region IX office.
        Because of the enforceability-related deficiencies in LCAQMD Section (Rule) 439.5 and MBUAPCD Rule 1002, EPA cannot grant full approval of these rules under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. However, sanctions pursuant to section 179(b) will not be applied, because these areas are an attainment area and a maintenance attainment area, respectively.
        Because of the deficiencies in BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, EPA cannot grant full approval of these rules under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the submitted rules are not composed of separable parts which meet all the applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval of the rules under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited approval of the submitted rules under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval of BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
        At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, because they contain deficiencies that have not been corrected as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA, and, as such, the rules do not fully meet the requirements of part D of the CAA. Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of such disapproval. These sanctions would be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rules covered by this NPR have been adopted by the LCAQMD, MBUAPCD, BAAQMD, SMAQMD, and SJVUAPCD and are currently in effect in the Districts. EPA's final limited disapproval action will not prevent these Districts from enforcing these rules.
        We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approvals and limited disapprovals for the next 30 days.
        IV. Administrative Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
        B. Executive Order 13045
        Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
        This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
        C. Executive Order 13084
        Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”
        Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.
        D. Executive Order 13132
        Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under E.O. 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132, because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
        E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
        This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

        Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
        F. Unfunded Mandates
        Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
        EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
        EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: October 20, 2000.
          Felicia Marcus,
          Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      [FR Doc. 00-29065 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-9911-79-Region 4]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the B&B Chemical Co., Inc Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the B&B Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site (Site) located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than pavement maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by July 7, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Web site: www.epa.gov/region4/waste/sf/enforce.htm.

          • Email: johnston.shelby@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (404) 562-8287, Attention: Shelby Johnston.
          • Mail: Shelby Johnston, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial Section D, Superfund Remedial Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available Docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S. EPA Record Center, attn: Mr. Ronald Saskowski, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Phone: (404) 562-8862, Hours 8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday by appointment only; or, John F. Kennedy Library, 190 West 49th Street, Hialeah, Florida 33012, Phone: 305-821-2700, Hours 12 p.m.-8 p.m., Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Saturday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Shelby Johnston, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial Section D, Superfund Remedial Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, 404-562-8287, email: johnston.shelby@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of B&B Chemicals Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because The Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If the EPA receives no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, the Agency will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If adverse comment(s) are reviewed, the EPA will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. The EPA will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

        For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and Water supply.

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

          Dated: April 15, 2014.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2014-13209 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 040130031-4031-01;  I.D. 012704D]
        RIN 0648-AR92
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Proposed Emergency Rule to Maintain an Area Access Program for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery in Hudson Canyon

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed emergency rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This proposed emergency rule would implement measures to establish on March 1, 2004, the area access program for the Hudson Canyon Area, as proposed in Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  These measures would be in place for 180 days or until such time that Amendment 10 can be implemented, which will be published later in the Federal Register.  This action is necessary to avoid localized overfishing of sea scallops in the Hudson Canyon Area, and would help ensure that fishing mortality rates do not exceed the target thresholds established in the FMP.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, February 19, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on this proposed emergency rule should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA  01930-2298.  Please mark the envelope “Comments - Emergency Rule to Maintain an Area Access Program for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery in Hudson Canyon.”  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 978-281-9135.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) and any other documents supporting this action are available from the Regional Office at the address specified here, and are accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/nero.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Peter W. Christopher, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9288, fax 978-281-9135, e-mail peter.christopher@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Hudson Canyon Area (and the Virginia Beach Area) were first closed to sea scallop fishing in 1998 by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) through an interim rule, enacted in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to protect an abundance of small scallops that would have been vulnerable to excessive mortality if left unprotected.  On March 29, 1999, Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery (FMP) extended the closures until March 1, 2001, to allow scallops within the areas to grow and spawn.  Frameworks 14 and 15, implemented on May 1, 2001, and March 1, 2003, respectively, reopened the Hudson Canyon and Virginia Beach Areas to controlled scallop fishing because the area closures had provided sufficient time for the scallop resource within the areas to grow to a size suitable for harvest.
        The regulations for the sea scallop fishery for the 2003 fishing year (March 1, 2003-February 29, 2004) include, among other measures, an area access program to govern the fishery within the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area (Hudson Canyon Area).  The program establishes an overall total allowable catch (TAC) for the area, limits the number of trips that can be taken into the area, establishes a scallop trip limit, and establishes a minimum number of days-at-sea (DAS) that will be deducted for each access trip from the vessel's DAS allocation.  The Council adopted Amendment 10 to the FMP in September 2003, and submitted it for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on December 19, 2003.  Among the measures proposed in Amendment 10 is a continuation of an area access program for the Hudson Canyon Area, with some revisions to the program.  Amendment 10 has been made available to the public for comment through March 15, 2004.

        The Council's December 2003 submission of Amendment 10 means that it will not be possible to implement the action, if approved, by March 1, 2004.  Thus, the existing Hudson Canyon area access program will expire at the end of the fishing year (February 29, 2004) and, on March 1, 2004, the Hudson Canyon Area will open to fishing without an area access program.  Absent another regulatory action, the DAS allocations currently specified in the FMP will go into effect for limited access scallop vessels on March 1, 2004:  34, 14, and 3 DAS for full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels, respectively.  Amendment 10 would, if approved, allocate an additional eight, three, and one DAS for use by full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels, respectively, in areas other than those under area management.  Amendment 10 would also, if approved, specifically allocate 48, 12, and 12 DAS for use by full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels, respectively, within the Hudson Canyon Area, under an area access program.
        Without this emergency action, the fishing that occurs in the Hudson Canyon Area between March 1 and the implementation of Amendment 10 (if approved) would inflict fishing mortality on the resource in addition to that proposed for the Hudson Canyon Access Area in Amendment 10.  The additive impacts of this fishing could result in localized overfishing in the Hudson Canyon Area.  Should Amendment 10 be disapproved, this proposed emergency action would allow controlled harvests from the Hudson Canyon Area, consistent with the status of the Hudson Canyon Area resource as analyzed in Amendment 10.  This action would allow the resource within the Hudson Canyon Area to be harvested at appropriate levels, and would allow limited access vessels to fish at a level nearer to the mortality objectives for the stock.
        Without continued controls on scallop fishing in the Hudson Canyon Area, NMFS is concerned about the impact of fishing on the scallop resource in this area, even with the reduced allocation of DAS.  The area was initially closed to protect concentrations of juvenile scallops, which have since grown to harvestable size.  For the past 3 fishing years, fishing has been allowed, but with controls.  Amendment 10 proposes to maintain controls on effort and catch that would prevent the areas from being overfished.  A lapse in controls may result in high fishing effort and mortality, which may be detrimental to the health of the scallop resource in the area.  In fact, the reduced DAS allocations that will otherwise take effect on March 1, 2004,  may serve as an incentive for some vessels to fish within the Hudson Canyon Area rather than elsewhere, and fishing effort could concentrate in the area.  Controls within the area over the past few years have maintained catch rates that may be higher than those in other areas.  In addition, the Hudson Canyon Area is a relatively short distance from ports in the Mid-Atlantic, and vessel owners may choose to fish in the Hudson Canyon Area to minimize the DAS used to cover steaming time to more distant fishing areas.
        This emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is justified under and consistent with NOAA emergency rule guidelines published at 62 FR 44421 (August 21, 1997).  These guidelines provide that a Magnuson-Stevens Act emergency action is justified in extremely urgent or special circumstances where substantial harm to or disruption of the resource, fishery or community would be caused in the time it would take to follow standard rulemaking procedures.  It was not reasonably foreseeable that Amendment 10 would not be implemented by March 1, 2004, at the time it would have been necessary to initiate another type of action, such as a Secretarial amendment or framework adjustment.  Therefore, the only procedure available to the agency for implementing these measures is a section 305(c) emergency action.  As discussed above, failure to implement this emergency action would result in serious conservation and economic problems for the fishery.
        Proposed Action
        The proposed measures for the emergency action are summarized below:
        Continuation of the existing notification and enrollment requirements of the current Hudson Canyon Controlled Access Area program, including twice hourly vessel monitoring system (VMS) polling;
        Continuation of the existing observer program established for the current Hudson Canyon Controlled Access Area program;
        Continuation of the existing VMS catch reporting requirements;
        Continuation of the existing requirement for vessels taking a controlled area access trip to utilize twine top mesh with a minimum size of 10 inches (25.4 cm) to reduce finfish bycatch, primarily of flatfish;
        An additional allocation of 48 DAS for full-time limited access scallop vessels to conduct four trips within the Hudson Canyon Area only;
        An additional allocation of 12 DAS for part-time and occasional limited access vessels to conduct one trip within the Hudson Canyon area only;
        Allocation of DAS in trip-length blocks of 12 days, with each vessel making an Access Area trip to be charged 12 DAS for each trip, regardless of actual trip length;
        Establishment of a trip possession limit for limited access vessels of 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) (consistent with a 1,500-lb (680-kg) per day catch rate);
        Establishment of a 400-lb (181-kg) possession limit for General category vessels fishing in the Hudson Canyon Area (this measure would make the possession limit for these vessels consistent with the existing possession limit in open fishing areas).
        Classification
        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) as required under section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The IRFA describes the economic impact that this emergency proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.  A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see
          ADDRESSES).  A summary of the analysis follows:

        The IRFA describes this action, sets forth why it is being taken, and the legal basis for it.  A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action appear in the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section and is not repeated here.

        The measures proposed in this emergency action could impact any commercial vessel issued a Federal sea scallop vessel permit.  All of these vessels are considered small business entities for purposes of the IRFA because all of them grossed less than $3.5 million according to the dealer reports for the 2001 and 2002 fishing years.  Therefore, the analysis of impacts on vessels in the environmental assessment and other supporting documents for this action are relevant to this IRFA.  There are two main components of the scallop fleet:   Vessels eligible to participate in the limited access sector of the fleet and vessels that participate in the open access General Category sector of the fleet.  Limited access vessels are issued permits to fish for scallops on a Full-time, Part-time or Occasional basis.  In 2001, there were 252 Full-time permits, 38 Part-time permits, and 20 Occasional permits.  In 2002, there were 270 Full-time permits, 31 part time permits, and 19 Occasional permits.  Because the fishing year ends on the last day of February of each year, 2003 vessel permit information was incomplete at the time the Amendment 10 analysis was completed.  Much of the economic impacts analysis is based on the 2001 and 2002 fishing years; 2001 and 2002 were the last 2 years with complete permit information.  According to the most recent vessel permit records for 2003, there were 278 Full-time limited access vessels, 32 Part-time limited access vessels, and 16 Occasional  vessels.  In addition, there were 2,293, 2,493, and 2,257 vessels issued permits to fish in the General Category in 2001, 2002, and 2003, respectively.  Annual scallop revenue for the limited access sector averaged from $615,000 to $665,600 for Full-time vessels, $194,790 to $209,750 for Part-time vessels, and $14,400 to $42,500 for Occasional vessels during the 2001 and 2002 fishing years.  Total revenues per vessel, including revenues from species other than scallops, exceeded these amounts, but were less than $3.5 million per vessel.
        This action does not contain any new collection-of-information requirements, implement new reporting or recordkeeping measures, or create other compliance requirements that have not already been implemented and approved in prior actions.
        Potential economic impacts are discussed relative to no action, defined as the continuation of the existing DAS schedule (as specified in Amendment 7) with no additional controls on vessels fishing within the boundaries of the Hudson Canyon Access Area.  The combined economic impacts of the proposed action relative to the no action alternative are positive for the majority of small business entities in the scallop fishing industry.  A third alternative would close the Hudson Canyon Access Area to fishing, pending development of measures to control fishing effort in the area.  This alternative may have more negative economic impacts relative to the no action alternative due to the lack of access to the area that contains larger, more valuable scallops.  However, vessel owners would likely offset the lack of access to the higher concentrations of large scallops by shucking and landing the larger and more valuable scallops (highgrading).  Therefore, the closure alternative would not be significantly different than the no action alternative.
        Relative to taking no action, the proposed action is expected to benefit most vessels in the scallop fishery by increasing flexibility and revenues.  The emergency action would increase overall DAS allocations by allowing access to the Hudson Canyon Access Area with DAS that can only be used in the Hudson Canyon Access Area.  Additional DAS, equal to the DAS that would be implemented under the no action alternative can be used in other open areas.  Impacts may vary depending upon the relative mobility of the vessels in accessing fishing areas because the Hudson Canyon Access Area is more accessible to some vessels than others.
        The proposed emergency action would establish two distinct DAS allocations for scallop vessels.  Full-time, part-time, and occasional scallop vessels would be allocated 34, 14, and 3 DAS, respectively, to be used in all open areas outside of the Hudson Canyon Access Area.  For fishing in the Hudson Canyon Access Area, full-time vessels would be allocated four trips equaling 48 DAS, and part-time and occasional vessels would be allocated one trip equaling 12 DAS.  Compared to no action, which would allow only 34 DAS to be fished throughout all open areas, including the area that would be the Hudson Canyon Access Area, the proposed action would have higher revenues resulting from additional DAS allocations.  The economic analysis included in Amendment 10 estimates that the annual revenue derived from access to the Hudson Canyon Access Area would be approximately $48 million in 2004.  This $48 million in revenues would be additional to revenues generated from the DAS used outside of the Hudson Canyon Access Area.  Amendment 10 also estimates that the scallop revenue from even one access area trip could amount to more than 10% of the annual revenue in 2004.
        Vessels holding General Category scallop permits would be authorized to harvest up to 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallop meats from open areas and controlled access areas.  Expected revenues for those vessels would be the same under the proposed action and the no action alternative because vessels would be able to fish in any open area for 400 lb (181.4 kg) of scallops under both alternatives.  However, allowing access to the Hudson Canyon Access Area could have positive economic impacts on these vessels by increasing their flexibility and ability to fish in different areas to increase scallop revenues.  Positive impacts would only be realized by the General Category fleet if vessels take advantage of the opening of the area.
        The RFA requires consideration of alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and that minimize economic impacts on small entities.  The IRFA should identify any significant alternatives that would minimize economic impacts on small entities, if such alternatives exist.  If there is an alternative with less impact on small entities that meets the stated objectives, the IRFA should explain why the proposed measure was selected instead of the alternative with less impact.  A rationale should be provided to explain any unavoidable adverse effects on small entities that are necessary to achieve the objectives.  The alternatives to the proposed action are the no action alternative and closure of the Hudson Canyon Access Area to scallop fishing.  Neither the no-action nor the closure alternative would minimize the economic impacts on small entities.  Under both non-preferred alternatives, lower overall DAS allocations would similarly constrain landings and revenues.  For both the no-action and the closure alternatives, DAS allocations of 34, 14, and 3 DAS for full-time, part-time, and occasional vessels would reduce annual revenues to approximately $110 million from $158 million, compared to the proposed action.  For the no-action alternative, the harvest of larger, more valuable scallops from the Hudson Canyon Access Area would not offset the revenue losses.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: February 2, 2004.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operation, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1.  The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2.  In § 648.14, paragraphs (h)(30), (h)(31), and (i)(8) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.14
          Prohibitions.

          (h) * * *

          (30) Land per trip more than 400 lb (181.44 kg) of scallop meats or 50 bu (17.62 hl) of in-shell scallops as specified in § 648.52(e) in or from the areas described in § 648.57 when fishing under a scallop DAS but not declared into the Sea Scallop Area Access Program or when fishing outside of the scallop DAS program.

          (31) Possess more than 400 lb. (181.44 kg) of scallop meats or 50 bu (17.62 hl) of in-shell scallops in the areas described in § 648.57 when fishing under a scallop DAS but not declared into the Sea Scallop Area Access Program or when fishing outside of the scallop DAS program, unless the vessel's fishing gear is unavailable for immediate use as defined in § 648.23(b),or,there is a compelling safety reason to be in such areas without all such gear being unavailable for immediate use.

          (i)* * *

          (8) Possess, retain, or land per trip no more than 400 lb (181.44 kg) of scallop meats or 50 bu (17.62 hl) of in-shell scallops in or from the areas described in § 648.57.

          § 648.52
          [Amended]
          3.  In § 648.52, paragraph (e) is removed.

        4.  Section 648.53 is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.53
          DAS allocations.
          (a) Assignment to DAS categories. Subject to the vessel permit application requirements specified in § 648.4, for each fishing year, each vessel issued a limited access scallop permit shall be assigned to the DAS category (full-time, part-time, or Occasional) it was assigned to in the preceding year, except as provided under the small dredge program specified in § 648.51(e).
          (b) Open area DAS allocations. (1) Total DAS to be used in all areas other than those specified in § 648.57 will be specified through the framework process as specified in § 648.55.
          (2) Each vessel qualifying for one of the three DAS categories specified in the table in this paragraph (Full-time, Part-time, or Occasional) shall be allocated, for each fishing year, the maximum number of DAS it may participate in the limited access scallop fishery, according to its category.  A vessel whose owner/operator has declared it out of the scallop fishery, pursuant to the provisions of § 648.10, or that has used up its allocated DAS, may leave port without being assessed a DAS, as long as it does not possess or land more than 400 lb (181.4 kg) of shucked or 50 bu (17.62 hl) of in-shell scallops and complies with all other requirements of this part.  The annual DAS allocations for each category of vessel for the fishing years indicated, after deducting DAS for observer and research DAS set-asides, are as follows:

              2003
              2004
              2005
              2006
              2007
              2008

              DAS Category

              Full-time
              120
              34
              35
              38
              36
              60

              Part-time
              48
              14
              14
              15
              17
              24

              Occasional
              10
              3
              3
              3
              4
              5

          (c) Sea Scallop Access Area DAS allocations. Vessels fishing in a Sea Scallop Access Area specified in § 648.57, under the Sea Scallop Area Access Program specified in § 648.58, are allocated additional DAS to fish only within each Sea Scallop Access Area, as specified in § 648.58(a)(3).
          (d) Adjustments in annual DAS allocations. Adjustments or changes in annual DAS allocations, if required to meet fishing mortality reduction goals, may be made following a reappraisal and analysis under the framework provisions specified in § 648.55.
          (e) End-of-year carry-over. With the exception of vessels that held a Confirmation of Permit History as described in § 648.4(a)(1)(i)(J) for the entire fishing year preceding the carry-over year, limited access vessels that have unused DAS on the last day of February of any year may carry over a maximum of 10 DAS into the next year.  DAS carried over into the next fishing year may not be used in the Hudson Canyon Access Area.  DAS sanctioned vessels will be credited with unused DAS based on their DAS allocation minus total DAS sanctioned.
          (f) Accrual of DAS. Unless participating in the Area Access Program described in § 648.58, DAS shall accrue to the nearest minute.
          (g) Good Samaritan credit. Limited access vessels fishing under the DAS program and that spend time at sea assisting in a USCG search and rescue operation or assisting the USCG in towing a disabled vessel, and that can document the occurrence through the USCG, will not accrue DAS for the time documented.

        5. In § 648.57, paragraph (b) is removed and reserved, and paragraph (a) introductory text is revised to read, as follows:

          § 648.57
          Closed and regulated areas.
          (a) Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area.  From March 1, 2004, through August 2, 2004, except as provided in § 648.58, no vessel may fish for scallops in or possess or land scallops from the area known as the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area, and no vessel may possess scallops in the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area, unless such vessel is only transiting the area with all fishing gear unavailable for immediate use as defined in § 648.23(b), or there is a compelling safety reason to be in such areas without all such gear being unavailable for immediate use.  The Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area (copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request) is defined by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated:

        6. Section 648.58 is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.58
          Sea Scallop Area Access Program requirements.
          (a) From March 1, 2004, through August 2, 2004, vessels issued a limited access scallop permit may fish in the Sea Scallop Access Areas specified in § 648.57 when fishing under a scallop DAS, provided the vessel complies with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) and (b) through (e) of this section.  Unless otherwise restricted under this part, vessels issued General Category scallop permits may fish in the Sea Scallop Access Areas specified in § 648.57, subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.52(b).
          (1) VMS. The vessel must have installed on board an operational VMS unit that meets the minimum performance criteria specified in § 648.9 and 648.10, and paragraph (e) of this section.
          (2) Declaration. (i) Prior to the 25th day of the month preceding the month in which fishing is to take place, the vessel must submit a monthly report through the VMS e-mail messaging system of its intention to fish in any Sea Scallop Access Area, along with the following information:   Vessel name and permit number, owner and operator's name, owner and operator's phone numbers, and number of trips anticipated for each Sea Scallop Access Area in which it intends to fish.  The Regional Administrator may waive a portion of this notification period for trips into the Sea Scallop Access Areas if it is determined that there is insufficient time to provide such notification prior to an access opening.  Notification of this waiver of a portion of the notification period shall be provided to the vessel through a permit holder letter issued by the Regional Administrator.
          (ii) In addition to the information described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, and for the purpose of selecting vessels for observer deployment, a vessel shall provide notice to NMFS of the time, port of departure, and specific Sea Scallop Access Area to be fished, at least 5 working days prior to the beginning of any trip into the Sea Scallop Access Area.
          (iii) To fish in a Sea Scallop Access Area, the vessel owner or operator shall declare a Sea Scallop Access Area trip through the VMS less than 1 hour prior to the vessel leaving port, in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Regional Administrator.
          (3) Number of trips. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a vessel is limited to the following number of trips and automatic DAS deduction into the Hudson Canyon Sea Scallop Access Area  specified in § 648.57:
          (i) Full-time vessels. A Full-time vessel is restricted to a total of 4 trips, equaling an automatic deduction of 12 days per trip for a total of 48 DAS, into the Hudson Canyon Access Area.
          (ii) Part-time vessels. A Part-time vessel is restricted to a total of 1 trip, equaling an automatic deduction of 12 days per trip for a total of 12 DAS, into the Hudson Canyon Access Area.
          (iii) Occasional scallop vessels. An Occasional vessel is restricted to a total of 1 trip, equaling an automatic deduction of 12 days per trip for a total of 12 DAS, into the Hudson Canyon Access Area.
          (4) Area fished. While on a Sea Scallop Access Area trip, a vessel may not fish for, possess, or land scallops from outside the Hudson Canyon Access Area during that trip and must not enter or exit the Hudson Canyon Access Area fished more than once per trip.
          (5) Possession and landing limits. After declaring a trip into the Hudson Canyon Access Area, a vessel owner or operator may fish for, possess, and land up to 18,000 lb (9,525 kg) of scallop meats per trip.  No vessel fishing in the Hudson Canyon  Access Area may possess or land, more than 50 bu (17.62 hl) of in-shell scallops shoreward of the VMS demarcation line.
          (6) Gear restrictions. The vessel must fish with or possess scallop dredge or trawl gear only in accordance with the restrictions specified in § 648.51(a) and (b), except that the mesh size of a net, net material, or any other material on the top of a scallop dredge in use by or in possession of the vessel shall not be smaller than 10.0 inches (25.40 cm) square or diamond mesh.
          (7) Transiting. While outside a Sea Scallop Access Area on a Sea Scallop Access Area trip, the vessel must have all fishing gear stowed and unavailable for immediate use as specified in § 648.23(b), unless there is a compelling safety reason.
          (8) Off-loading restrictions. The vessel may not off-load its catch from a Sea Scallop Access Area trip at more than one location per trip.
          (9) Reporting. The owner or operator must submit reports through the VMS, in accordance with instructions to be provided by the Regional Administrator, for each day fished when declared in the Sea Scallop Area Access Program, including trips accompanied by a NMFS-approved observer.  The reports must be submitted in 24-hour intervals, for each day beginning at 0000 hours and ending at 2400 hours.  The reports must be submitted by 0900 hours of the following day and must include the following information:   Total pounds/kilograms of scallop meats kept, total number of tows and the Fishing Vessel Trip Report log page number.
          (b) Accrual of DAS. For each Hudson Canyon Access Area trip,  a vessel on a Hudson Canyon Access Area trip shall have 12 DAS deducted from its access area DAS allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, regardless of the actual number of DAS used during the trip.
          (c) Increase of possession limit to defray costs of observers.—(1) Observer set-aside limits by area. The observer set-aside for the Hudson Canyon Access Area is 187,900 lb (85.2 mt).
          (2) Defraying the costs of observers. The Regional Administrator may increase the sea scallop possession limit specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section to defray costs of at-sea observers deployed on area access trips subject to the limits specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.  Owners of limited access scallop vessels will be notified of the increase in the possession limit through a permit holder letter issued by the Regional Administrator.  If the observer set-aside is fully utilized prior to the end of the fishing year, the Regional Administrator will notify owners of limited access vessels that, effective on a specified date, the possession limit will be decreased to the level specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.  Vessel owners shall be responsible for paying the cost of the observer, regardless of whether the vessel lands or sells sea scallops on that trip, and regardless of the availability of set-aside for an increased possession limit.
          (d) VMS polling. For the duration of the Sea Scallop Area Access Program, as described under this section, all sea scallop limited access vessels equipped with a VMS unit shall be polled at least twice per hour, regardless of whether the vessel is enrolled in the Sea Scallop Area Access Program.  Vessel owners shall be responsible for paying the costs for the polling.

      [FR Doc. 04-2411 Filed 2-2-04; 1:07 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Parts 21 and 22
        RINs 1018-AG11 and 1018-AT60
        Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry and Raptor Propagation; Final Environmental Assessment on Take of Raptors From the Wild for Falconry and Raptor Propagation

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) evaluating the take of raptors from the wild for use in falconry and in raptor propagation, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for take of raptors for those purposes. We have prepared the FEA and the FONSI as part of the process we must follow to finalize two rules under the National Environmental Policy Act.

          ADDRESSES:

          The documents are available from the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. They also are available on the Division of Migratory Bird Management Web pages at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Dr. George T. Allen, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 703-358-1714.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the draft Environmental Assessment, we considered three alternatives for amending the falconry and raptor propagation regulations. In particular, at the request of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we considered elimination of the federal/state falconry permitting system and replacing it with a state permitting system operating within a prescribed federal framework.
        We received 313 electronic or written comment letters on the draft Environmental Assessment. We modified the Draft Environmental Assessment to respond to concerns expressed by agencies, organizations, and individuals.
        Having reviewed the comments on the draft, our proposed action is to establish national take levels of concern for take of raptor species based on the published data for, and biology of, each species; to eliminate the federal permitting for falconry, but to leave the current captive propagation federal permitting program in place. Based on this assessment, I have signed the Finding of No Significant Impact for take of raptors from the wild for use in falconry and in raptor propagation.

          Dated: May 25, 2007.
          Todd Willens,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

       [FR Doc. E7-10909 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 85 and 86
        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537
        [NHTSA-2018-0067; EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0283; FRL-9984-62-OAR; NHTSA-2017-0069]
        RIN 2127-AL76; 2060-AU09
        The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; correction.

          SUMMARY:

          This document corrects information in the proposed rule published in the August 24, 2018 issue of the Federal Register entitled The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Specifically, a table in the Paperwork Reduction Act section is corrected; two minor changes are made to one amendatory instruction in NHTSA's regulatory text, and the coefficients specifying the proposed carbon dioxide standards in EPA's regulatory text have been corrected to reflect EPA's proposal to exclude credits for direct A/C emissions for purposes of compliance with carbon dioxide standards after model year 2020, as explained in Section III of the proposed rule. This document contains only clerical corrections and makes no updates to either the proposal or to the analysis underlying the proposal. For the reader's information, an updated Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment (PRIA) will also be made available concurrent with this notice; that document will include descriptions starting on the second page detailing the corrections to various tables and figures therein.

          DATES:
          Comments for the proposed rule must be received on or before October 26, 2018.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4584; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: lieske.christopher@epa.gov, or contact the Assessment and Standards Division, email address: otaqpublicweb@epa.gov. NHTSA: James Tamm, Office of Rulemaking, Fuel Economy Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone number: (202) 493-0515.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        In the proposed rule beginning at 83 FR 42986, in the issue of August 24, 2018, make the following corrections:
        On page 43480, replace the existing Table XII-2 with the following table:

          Table XII-2—Estimated Burden for Reporting Requirements

            Manufacturers
            Hours
            Cost
            Government
            Hours
            Cost

            Prior Collection
            3,189.00
            $24,573.50
            975.00
            $31,529.00

            Current Collection
            3,774.5
            187,530.82
            3,038.00
            141,246.78

            Difference
            585.50
            162,957.32
            2,063.00
            109,717.78

        On page 43489, third column, remove the first instance of instruction 16 and in the second, in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) correct “8,877” to read “8,887.”
        On page 43494, replace existing Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) with the following table:

            Model year
            CO2
              target value
              (grams/mile)

            2012
            244.0

            2013
            237.0

            2014
            228.0

            2015
            217.0

            2016
            206.0

            2017
            195.0

            2018
            185.0

            2019
            175.0

            2020
            166.0

            2021 and later
            182.0

        On Page 43495 replace Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) with the following table:

            Model year
            CO2
              target value
              (grams/mile)

            2012
            315.0

            2013
            307.0

            2014
            299.0

            2015
            288.0

            2016
            277.0

            2017
            263.0

            2018
            250.0

            2019
            238.0

            2020
            226.0

            2021 and later
            244.0

        On Page 43496 replace the table currently titled “Table 1 to Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C)” with the following table header and table:

          Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C)

            Model year
            a
            b

            2012
            4.72
            50.5

            2013
            4.72
            43.3

            2014
            4.72
            34.8

            2015
            4.72
            23.4

            2016
            4.72
            12.7

            2017
            4.53
            8.9

            2018
            4.35
            6.5

            2019
            4.17
            4.2

            2020
            4.01
            1.9

            2021 and later
            4.09
            14.6

        On Page 43497 replace the table currently titled “Table 1 to Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)” with the following table header and table:

          Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)

            Model year
            CO2
              target value
              (grams/mile)

            2012
            294.0

            2013
            284.0

            2014
            275.0

            2015
            261.0

            2016
            247.0

            2017
            238.0

            2018
            227.0

            2019
            220.0

            2020
            212.0

            2021 and later
            227.0

        On Page 43498 replace the table currently titled “Table 1 to Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B)” with the following table header and table:

          Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B)

            Model year
            Maximum footprint
            a
            b

            2012
            66.0
            4.04
            128.6

            2013
            66.0
            4.04
            118.7

            2014
            66.0
            4.04
            109.4

            2015
            66.0
            4.04
            95.1

            2016
            66.0
            4.04
            81.1

            2017
            50.7
            4.87
            38.3

            2018
            60.2
            4.76
            31.6

            2019
            66.4
            4.68
            27.7

            2020
            68.3
            4.57
            24.6

            2021 and later
            68.3
            4.57
            39.9

        On Page 43499 replace the table currently titled “Table 1 to Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D)” with the following table header and table:

          Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D)

            Model year
            Minimumfootprint

            CO2
              target value
              (grams/mile)

            2012
            66.0
            395.0

            2013
            66.0
            385.0

            2014
            66.0
            376.0

            2015
            66.0
            362.0

            2016
            66.0
            348.0

            2017
            66.0
            347.0

            2018
            66.0
            342.0

            2019
            66.4
            339.0

            2020
            68.3
            337.0

            2021 and later
            68.3
            352.0

          Issued on October 16, 2018 in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
          Heidi R. King,
          Deputy Administrator,  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
          Dated: October 16, 2018.
          William L. Wehrum,
          Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,  Environmental Protection Agency.

      [FR Doc. 2018-22976 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        48 CFR Parts 3019 and 3052
        [Docket No. DHS-2018-0024]
        RIN 1601-AA83
        Rescinding Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting (HSAR Case 2017-001)

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DHS is proposing to deregulate HSAR clause 3052.219-70 as the requirements of this clause duplicate the requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. As such, HSAR clause 3052.219-70 is no longer needed to provide guidance to contractors and DHS proposes to remove the clause from the HSAR.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to one of the addresses shown below on or before July 5, 2018, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by HSAR Case 2017-001, Rescinding HSAR clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting, using any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

          Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “HSAR Case 2017-001” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “HSAR Case 2017-001.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “HSAR Case 2017-001” on your attached document.
          • Fax: (202) 447-0520.
          • Mail: Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation, ATTN: Ms. Candace Lightfoot, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0080, Washington, DC 20528.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Candace Lightfoot, Procurement Analyst, DHS, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation at (202) 447-0882 or email HSAR@hq.dhs.gov. When using email, include HSAR Case 2017-001 in the “Subject” line.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        On December 4, 2003, DHS published an interim final rule to establish the Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR). 68 FR 67867. On May 2, 2006, DHS published a final rule, which adopted the interim rule with some changes in response to public comment (HSAR final rule). 71 FR 25759. The HSAR final rule finalized, among other things, HSAR clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Reporting Plan (48 CFR 3052.219-70). HSAR clause 3052.219-70 requires contractors to: (a) Enter the information for the Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts (formally the Standard Form 294 (SF-294)) and the Summary Subcontract Report (formally the Standard Form 295 (SF-295)) into the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at www.esrs.gov; and (b) include HSAR clause 3052.219.70 in all subcontracts that include the clause at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.219-9. The eSRS is a web-based system, which replaces the Standard Forms 294 and 295 as the mechanism for submitting reports required by the small business subcontracting program.
        On June 16, 2010, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council issued a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require contractors' small business subcontract reports be submitted using the eSRS, rather than Standard Forms 294 and 295. 75 FR 34260; FAR Case 2005-040. This change to the FAR was issued under Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-42 of June 16, 2010. 75 FR 34291. As a result of the FAR revision HSAR clause 3052.219-70 is no longer needed to provide guidance to contractors on the eSRS requirements. Therefore, DHS is proposing to remove HSAR clause 3052.219-70 and the cross-reference to it found in paragraph (a) of 48 CFR 3019.708-70.
        In addition, DHS is proposing to amend the authority citation for part 3019 to conform the authority to the Positive Law Codification of Title 41, United States code, “Public Contracts”. The new codification of Title 41 was enacted on January 4, 2011.1

            1 See Public Law 111-350, (Jan. 4, 2011).

        II. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
        Executive Orders 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. OMB considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017). This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        There are no quantified costs or cost savings to this rule as it simply rescinds requirements that have already been shifted to the FAR. DHS believes there are non-monetized efficiency and streamlining benefits to this rule as it removes outdated provisions of the HSAR.
        III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This action rescinds HSAR clause 3052.219-70 and, as such, DHS does not expect the proposed change to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

        IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
        The total hours and costs associated with existing HSAR clause 3052.219-70, as set forth in HSAR OMB Control Number, 1600-0003, Post-award Contract Information, are as follows:

          Estimated Respondents: 11,885.

          Average Responses Annually: 3.

          Total Annual Responses: 35,655.

          Estimated Hours: 12.

          Total Hours: 427,860.

          Hourly Rate: $67.86.

          Total Costs: $29,034,579.60.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 3019 and 3052
          Government procurement.

        Therefore, DHS proposes to revise 48 CFR parts 3019 and 3052 as follows:

          PART 3019—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

        1. Revise the authority citation for 48 CFR part 3019 to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 301-302, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 41 U.S.C. 1707, and 48 CFR part 1 and subpart 1.3.

        2. Amend section 3019.708-70 by removing paragraph (a) and redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).

          PART 3052—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        3. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 3052 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 301-302, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 41 U.S.C. 1707, and 48 CFR part 1 and subpart 1.3

        4. Remove clause 3052.219-70.

          Soraya Correa,
          Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security.

      [FR Doc. 2018-11617 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P