Federal Register Vol. 82, No.241,

OMB No.:

Form No.: AID 309-2.

Title: Offeror Information for Personal Services Contracts With Individuals.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Purpose: United States Agency for International Development must collect information for reporting purposes to Congress and Office of Acquisition and Assistance Contract Administration. This form will be used to collect information to determine the most qualified person for a position without gathering information that may lead to discrimination or bias towards or gathered from applicant.

Annual Reporting Burden:

U.S. Respondents: 12,684.

Total annual U.S. responses: 12,684.

Total annual hours requested: 12,684 hours.

The burden estimate is based on the average number of PSC awards made over the past three years, which is 604. The average number of offerors received for each solicitation is 21. Therefore, the total number of offers received is 604 × 21 = 12,684. The amount of time estimated to complete the form is one hour.

Title: Milk and Milk Products Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0020.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2018.

Type of Request: To revise and extend a currently approved information collection for a period of three years.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to collect, prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices and disposition as well as economic statistics, farm numbers, land values, on-farm pesticide usage, pest crop management practices, as well as the Census of Agriculture. The Milk and Milk Products Surveys obtain basic agricultural statistics on milk production and manufactured dairy products from farmers and processing plants throughout the nation. Data are gathered for milk production, dairy products, evaporated and condensed milk, manufactured dry milk, and manufactured whey products. Milk production and manufactured dairy products statistics are used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help administer federal programs and by the dairy industry in planning, pricing, and projecting supplies of milk and milk products. Only minor changes are planned for the questionnaires and sample sizes. The Milk Production Survey will continue to be conducted quarterly (January, April, July, and October) and monthly estimates for the non-quarterly months will still be published for the total number of dairy cows, the number of cows milked, and the total milk produced. Estimates for the non-survey months will be generated by using a combination of administrative data, regression modeling, and historic data. In April 2012 NASS discontinued the collection of Dairy Product Prices. This data is now collected by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in compliance with the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010, and the amended section 273(d) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

Authority: Voluntary dairy information reporting is conducted under authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276), which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Mandatory dairy product information reporting is based on the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 2000 and the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 (U.S.C. 1637-1637b). This program requires each manufacturer to report to USDA the price, quantity, and moisture content of dairy products sold and each entity storing dairy products to report information on the quantity of dairy products stored. Any manufacturer that processes, markets, or stores less than 1,000,000 pounds of dairy products per year is exempt. USDA is required to maintain information, statistics, or documents obtained under these Acts in a manner that ensures that confidentiality is preserved regarding the identity of persons and proprietary business information, subject to verification by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) under Public Law 106-532. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),” Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 115, June 15, 2007, p. 33362.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 minutes per response. This average is based on the 7 different surveys in the information collection: 2 monthly, 4 quarterly, and 1 annual. The estimated total number of responses is 63,100 annually, with an average annual frequency of 4.44 responses per respondent. NASS will continue to use cover letters to explain the importance and uses of this data series along with how the respondent can access and report their data using the secure internet connection that NASS is using.

Respondents: Farms and businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 14,200.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,000 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call number: 1-877-718-5106 and conference call ID: 4749623. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator may ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number herein.

Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call number: 1-877-718-5106 and conference call ID: 4749623.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=240; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

Agenda: Friday, January 19, 2018 at 11:30 a.m.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-548-7915, conference ID number: 1012859. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=270. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, https://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is January 4, 2018);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is January 19, 2018); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

Over 100 species of coral are included in the FMP for the Coral and Coral Reef Resources of the Gulf. In 2013, the Council held a workshop to discuss how corals may be affected by Gulf fisheries. One of the workshop recommendations was for the Council to consider additional habitat protections for new and existing coral areas in the Gulf. While designating particular sites within existing coral essential fish habitat (EFH) as HAPCs does not provide any additional specific protections to designated areas, it can be used to focus attention on those areas for future Council actions and when NMFS conducts required EFH consultations on Federal actions that may adversely affect the habitat.

In December 2014, the Council convened their Coral Working Group to discuss which areas in the Gulf may warrant specific protection for corals. The group identified 47 areas, including existing HAPCs, that may be in need of new or revised protection and recommended that new areas also be designated as HAPCs. In May 2015, the Council's Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Coral Advisory Panel (AP) reviewed these areas along with members of the shrimp fishing community and recommended that the boundaries of some of the areas be refined based on available fishing information. In August 2016, the Council's Coral SSC, Coral AP, Shrimp AP, as well as Council invitees including royal red shrimp fishermen and bottom longline fishermen, provided input to the Council and recommended that 14 areas be designated as HAPCs with accompanying fishing regulations and 8 areas be designated without accompanying fishing regulations. Based on this input, the Council began developing Amendment 9.

NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, will develop a DEIS to describe and analyze alternatives to address the management needs described above including the “no action” alternative. The Amendment 9 DEIS will describe and analyze the modification of fishing regulations within the existing Pulley Ridge HAPC boundary, the establishment of 22 new HAPCs, and the exclusion of dredge fishing in all HAPCs that are managed with fishing regulations.

In accordance with NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6A, accompanying National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Procedures (companion manual), and the Scoping Process, NMFS, in collaboration with the Council, has identified preliminary environmental issues as a means to initiate discussion for scoping purposes only. The public is invited to provide written comments on the preliminary issues, which are identified as actions and alternatives in the Amendment 9 draft public hearing paper and action guide. These preliminary issues may not represent the full range of issues that eventually will be evaluated in the DEIS. A copy of the Amendment 9 draft public hearing paper and action guide are available at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/coral/Coral9/Coral9index.html. Additionally, public comments will be solicited at public hearings held by the Council, which are planned for spring 2018 and will be announced in the Federal Register.

After the DEIS associated with Amendment 9 is completed, it will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After filing, the EPA will publish a notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS for public comment in the Federal Register. The DEIS NOA will have a 45-day comment period. This procedure is pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6A regarding NOAA's compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

The Council and NMFS will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and before the Council votes to submit Amendment 9 to NMFS for Secretarial review and implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS will announce in the Federal Register the availability of the final amendment and FEIS for public review during the Secretarial review period, and will consider all public comments prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final amendment. During Secretarial review, NMFS will also file the FEIS with the EPA and the EPA will publish an NOA for the FEIS in the Federal Register.

NMFS will announce, through a notice published in the Federal Register, all public comment periods on the final amendment, the proposed implementing regulations, and the availability of the associated FEIS. NMFS will consider all public comments received during the Secretarial review period, whether they are on the final amendment, the proposed regulations, or the FEIS, prior to final agency action.

The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.

Status: The meeting will be open to public participation with a 10-minute public comment period at 3:45-3:55 p.m. EST. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of two (2) minutes. Written comments for the meeting should be received in the SAB Executive Director's Office by February 13, 2018 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received after by the SAB Executive Director after these dates will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.

Special Accommodations: This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to the Executive Director no later than 12 p.m. on February 13th.

Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will include discussions on the SAB biennial work plan. Meeting materials, including work products will be made available on the SAB website: http://sab.noaa.gov/SABMeetings.aspx.

Title, Associated Forms and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 217, Special Contracting Methods, and related clauses at 252.217; OMB Control Number 0704-0214.

Needs and Uses: DFARS Part 217 prescribes policies and procedures for acquiring supplies and services by special contracting methods. Contracting officers use the required information as follows:

Contracting officers use the information required by DFARS 217.7004(a) where offerors shall state prices for the new items being acquired both with and without any exchange (trade-in allowance).

Contracting officers use the information from 217.7404-3(b), to evaluate a contractor's “qualifying proposal” in accordance with the definitization schedule. This subpart allows the contracting officer to require receipt of a qualifying proposal containing sufficient information for DoD to complete a meaningful analyses and audit of the information in the proposal, and any other information that the contracting officer has determined DoD needs to review in connection with the contract.

Contracting officers use the information from 217.7505(d), where the offeror submits with its proposal, price and quantity data on any Government orders for the replenishment part issued within the most recent 12 months.

The clause at DFARS 252.217-7012 is used in master agreements for repair and alteration of vessels. Contracting officers use the information required by paragraph (d) of the clause to determine that the contractor is adequately insured. This requirement supports prudent business practice, because it limits the Government's liability as a related party to the work the contractor performs. Contracting officers use the information required by paragraphs (f) and (g) of the clause to keep informed of lost or damaged property for which the Government is liable, and to determine the appropriate course of action for replacement or repair of the property.

Contracting officers use the information required by the provision at DFARS 252.217-7026 to identify the apparently successful offeror's sources of supply so that competition can be enhanced in future acquisitions. This collection complies with 10 U.S.C. 2384, Supplies: Identification of Suppliers and Sources, which requires the contractor to identify the actual manufacturer or all sources of supply for supplies furnished under contract to DoD.

Contracting officers use the information required by the clause at 252.217-7028 to determine the extent of “over and above” work before the work commences. This requirement allows the Government to review the need for pending work before the contractor begins performance.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for- profit institutions.

Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Reporting Frequency: On occasion.

Number of Respondents: 5,859.

Responses per Respondent: 5.

Annual Responses: 29,294.

Average Burden per Response: 8.

Annual Burden Hours: 234,355.

DFARS 217.7004, Exchange of Personal Property—Paragraph (a) of this section requires that solicitations which contemplate exchange (trade-in) of personal property and application of the exchange allowance to the acquisition of similar property (see 40 U.S.C. 481), shall include a request for offerors to state prices for the new items being acquired both with and without any exchange (trade-in allowance).

DFARS 217.7404-3, Undefinitized Contract Actions—Paragraph (b) of this section requires contractors to submit a “qualifying proposal” in accordance with the definitization schedule provided in the contract. A qualifying proposal is defined in DFARS 217.7401(c) as a proposal containing sufficient information for the DoD to do complete and meaningful analyses and audits of the information in the proposal, and any other information that the contracting officer has determined DoD needs to review in connection with the contract.

DFARS 217.7505, Acquisition of Replenishment Parts—Paragraph (d) of this section permits contracting officers to include in sole-source solicitations that include acquisition of replenishment parts, a provision requiring that the offeror supply with its proposal, price and quantity data on any Government orders for the replenishment part issued within the most recent 12 months (see 10 U.S.C. 2452 note, Spare Parts and Replacement Equipment, Publication of Regulations).

DFARS 252.217-7012, Liability and Insurance—Paragraph (d)(3) of this clause requires the contractor to show evidence of casualty, accident, and liability insurance under a master agreement for vessel repair and alteration.

DFARS 252.217-7012—Paragraphs (f) and (g) of the require the contractor to notify the contracting officer of any property loss or damage for which the Government is liable and to submit to the contracting officer a request, with supporting documentation, for reimbursement of the cost of replacement or repair.

DFARS 252.217-7026, Identification of Sources of Supply—This provision requires the apparently successful offeror to identify its sources of supply. The Government is required under 10 U.S.C. 2384 to obtain certain information on the actual manufacturer or sources of supplies it acquire.

DFARS 252.217-7028, Over and Above Work—Paragraphs (c) and (e) of this clause require the contractor to submit to the contracting officer a work request and proposal for “over and above work” or work discovered during the course of performing overhaul, maintenance, and repair efforts that is within the general scope of the contract, not covered by the line item(s) for the basic work under the contract, and necessary in order to satisfactorily complete the contract.

Geothermal energy has the potential to provide a significant amount of renewable electric power for the United States. Because drilling costs can account for 50% or more of the total capital cost for a geothermal power project, reducing those costs becomes one of the most important factors to realizing this potential. The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to lowering the costs and risks associated with drilling wells for geothermal development for electricity production. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is seeking input in three areas: defining the major challenges, research and development opportunities, and process improvement opportunities. The RFI is available at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId8eee00d1-af46-47ff-806e-a1c46df9b9d8.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

I. General Information Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and FIFRA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc expert members of FIFRA SAP for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Both U.S. citizens and permanent residents who can demonstrate they are actively seeking U.S. citizenship will be considered. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: PBPK modeling, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling, in vitro to in vivo extrapolation, human health risk assessment, neurotoxicity, organophosphate pesticides, pyrethroids pesticides, N-methyl carbamate pesticides, fungicides, acetylcholinesterase inhibition, and exposure assessment. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, email address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before January 17, 2018. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before that date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the Panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the Panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency, except EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential Panel member to fully participate in the Panel's review, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each Panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the Panel.

FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634—Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, Qualified Trusts, and Certificates of Divestiture, as supplemented by EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes and the final meeting report. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at https://www.epa.gov/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

The Agency is issuing this notice to announce the opportunity to provide additional nominations for experts to serve as ad hoc members for the FIFRA SAP reviewing PBPK modeling to address pharmacokinetic differences between and within species on six selected pesticidal active ingredients. The meeting, originally scheduled for October 24-27, 2017 as announced in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26086) (FRL 9962-78), has been postponed until 2018. The new meeting dates will be announced once they are selected. For additional information, please visit the public docket for this meeting at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0180), the FIFRA SAP website at http://www.epa.gov/sap or contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1171.

Title: Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (“CALM”) Act; 73.682(e) and 76.607(a).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,937 respondents and 4,868 responses.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

Estimated Time per Response:0.25-80 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 6,036 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) and (j), 303(r) and 621.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents with this collection of information.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission will use this information to determine compliance with the CALM Act. The CALM Act mandates that the Commission make the Advanced Television Systems Committee (“ATSC”) A/85 Recommended Practice mandatory for all commercial TV stations and cable/multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).

The Board's GSIB surcharge rule establishes a methodology to identify global systemically important bank holding companies in the United States (GSIBs) based on indicators that are correlated with systemic importance.1 Under the GSIB surcharge rule, a firm must calculate its GSIB score using a specific formula (Method 1). Method 1 uses five equally weighted categories that are correlated with systemic importance—size, interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional activity, substitutability, and complexity—and subdivided into twelve systemic indicators. For each indicator, a firm divides its own measure of each systemic indicator by an aggregate global indicator amount. The firm's Method 1 score is the sum of its weighted systemic indicator scores expressed in basis points. The GSIB surcharge for the firm is then the higher of the GSIB surcharge determined under Method 1 and a second method that weights size, interconnectedness, cross-jurisdictional activity, complexity, and a measure of a firm's reliance on wholesale funding (instead of substitutability).2

The aggregate global indicator amounts used in the score calculation under Method 1 are based on data collected by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). The BCBS amounts are determined based on the sum of the systemic indicator scores of the 75 largest U.S. and foreign banking organizations as measured by the BCBS, and any other banking organization that the BCBS includes in its sample total for that year. The BCBS publicly releases these values, denominated in euros, each year. Pursuant to the GSIB surcharge rule, the Board publishes the aggregate global indicator amounts each year as denominated in U.S. dollars using the euro-dollar exchange rate provided by the BCBS.3 Specifically, the Board multiplied each of the euro-denominated indicator amounts made publicly available by the BCBS by 1.0541, which was the daily euro to U.S. dollar spot rate on December 30, 2016, as published by the European Central Bank (available at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/eurofxref/index.en.html).

The aggregate global indicator amounts for purposes of the 2017 Method 1 score calculation under § 217.404(b)(1)(i)(B) of the GSIB surcharge rule are:

On September 28, 2017, the FTC sought public comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule (September 28, 2017 Notice 1 ), 16 CFR part 437 (OMB Control Number 3084-0142). No relevant comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule.

As detailed in the September 28, 2017 Notice, the FTC estimates cumulative annual burden on affected entities to be 10,065 hours, $2,516,250 in labor costs, and $3,062,224 in non-labor costs.

You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 17, 2018. Write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission website, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm.

Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or to send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/tobaccoreportspra, by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that website.

If you file your comment on paper, write “Business Opportunity Rule Paperwork Comment, FTC File No. P114408” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC website at https://www.ftc.gov/, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC website—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC website, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.

The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before January 17, 2018. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead can also be sent via email to [email protected].

CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Bacterial Diseases (DBD), Meningitis and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Branch (MVPDB) has lead technical responsibility for research, development and evaluation of diagnostic assays for their application in epidemiologic studies of pertussis. CDC uses epidemiologic, laboratory, clinical, and biostatistical sciences to control and prevent bacterial infectious disease such as pertussis. CDC also conducts applied research in a variety of settings, and translates the findings of this research into public health practice.

CDC is working closely with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) to consider including serology as an appropriate diagnostic tool for confirming a pertussis case. Serology can be very useful for diagnosing pertussis in adolescents and adults during the later phases of disease when the current accepted diagnostic methods, culture and PCR, are no longer reliable. Sensitive and specific quantitative seroassays have been developed and are routinely used for diagnosis of pertussis world-wide; however, FDA marketing authorization is necessary before these seroassays can be made commercially available as in vitro diagnostics in the United States. To date, no quantitative pertussis serology kits are commercially available in the United States for diagnostic use.

Interested manufacturers that may have candidate products are invited to contact CDC to discuss potential opportunities for collaboration. At a minimum, discussions with CDC should include the following information for each candidate product:

a. Product package insert or detailed instructions for use.

b. Detailed information to determine if the product is calibrated to a recognized standard.

c. Detailed summary of data demonstrating suitable analytical and clinical test characteristics (i.e. precision, linearity, accuracy, sensitivity/specificity, etc.).

Any collaborations that result from these conversations will require that manufacturers enter into an appropriate agreement prior to the transfer of any material to or from CDC. Sample agreements may be viewed at the following website: https://www.cdc.gov/od/science/technology/techtransfer/researchers/formsagreements/index.htm.

All information submitted to CDC will be kept confidential as allowed by relevant federal law, including the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905).

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Information Requests and Discipline Review Letters Under GDUFA.”

Under the first iteration of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA I), beginning October 1, 2012, FDA agreed to act on received ANDAs within established time frames. As part of this undertaking, the Agency instituted the use of multiple forms of communicating with an applicant regarding the review of an application, including issuance of Complete Response Letters (CRLs) and IRs.1

Under GDUFA I, FDA issued a CRL after completing a review of an ANDA. The CRL described all the deficiencies identified in the ANDA that must be satisfactorily addressed before the ANDA can be approved. Issuance of a CRL also completed the ANDA's review cycle, with the next review cycle beginning when the applicant amended the ANDA by submitting a complete response to all deficiencies listed in the CRL.

FDA used IRs to ask for information that would assist reviewers during the course of the review or to convey deficiencies identified in the application in advance of a CRL. IRs did not stop the review clock, did not signal the completion of a review cycle, and were not always used consistently across divisions or offices.

In negotiations held as part of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (GDUFA II), it was agreed that FDA will: (1) Issue an IR to request further information or clarification that is needed or would be helpful to allow completion of a discipline review and/or (2) issue a new type of letter for ANDAs, known as a DRL, to convey preliminary thoughts on possible deficiencies found by a discipline reviewer and/or review team for its or their portion of the application under review at the conclusion of a discipline review.2

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Information Requests and Discipline Review Letters Under GDUFA.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0797.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Drug Products, Including Biological Products, That Contain Nanomaterials.” This guidance applies to human drug products, including those that are biological products, in which a nanomaterial is present in the finished dosage form. This draft guidance discusses both general principles and specific considerations for the development of drug products containing nanomaterials, including considerations for establishing the equivalence of such products with other drugs. Considerations for quality, nonclinical, and clinical studies are discussed as they relate to drug products containing nanomaterials throughout product development and production.

This draft guidance does not limit or classify the types of nanomaterials that can be used in drug products. Rather, it is focused on the deliberate and purposeful manipulation and control of dimensions to produce specific physicochemical properties which may warrant further evaluation with regards to safety, effectiveness, performance, and quality. This guidance does not address, or presuppose, what ultimate regulatory outcome, if any, will result for a particular drug product that contains nanomaterials. Issues such as the safety, effectiveness, public health impact, or the regulatory status of drug products that contains nanomaterials are currently addressed on a case-by-case basis using FDA's existing review processes. Current CDER and CBER guidance documents and requirements for the evaluation and maintenance of quality, safety, and efficacy, apply to drug product containing nanomaterials that otherwise fall within their scopes. In addition, the Agency may continue to develop guidance addressing certain specific commonly-used types of nanomaterials, e.g., some liposomes, to better address the challenges in evaluating and characterizing the quality and performance of drug products that incorporate them.

This draft guidance is one of several FDA guidance documents related to FDA-regulated products that may involve the use of nanotechnology. FDA has not established regulatory definitions of “nanotechnology,” “nanomaterial,” “nanoscale,” or other related terms. In Guidance for Industry,” Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology,” issued in 2014, FDA described certain considerations for determining whether FDA-regulated products involve the application of nanotechnology. FDA will apply these considerations broadly to all FDA-regulated products, including drug products within the scope of this draft guidance. The use of the term “nanomaterial” in this draft guidance, as in other FDA guidance documents, does not constitute the establishment of a regulatory definition. Rather, we use this term for ease of reference only. See section II of the draft guidance for additional information.

FDA requests comment on the draft guidance. We also seek comment on the terminology, including the term “nanomaterial”, as used in the draft guidance.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on Drug Products, Including Biological Products, That Contain Nanomaterials. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

This draft guidance includes recommendations related to collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information that are related to the burden of submitting investigational new drug applications are covered under 21 CFR part 312 and have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information related to the burden of submitting new drug applications, including supplemental applications, are covered under 21 CFR part 314 and have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information related to the burden of submitting section 351(k) biosimilar applications have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719. The collections of information related to the burden of complying with the current good manufacturing process recordkeeping requirements under 21 CFR part 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139. The collections of information related to the burden of complying with the environmental impact requirements under 21 CFR part 25 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0322. The design and testing of prescription drug labeling required under 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 is approved under OMB control number 0910-0572. Concerning the immediate container label and outer container or package, in the Federal Register of December 18, 2014 (79 FR 75506), we published a proposed rule on the electronic distribution of prescribing information for human prescription drugs, including biological products. In Section VII, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we estimated the burden to design (including revisions), test, and produce the label for a drug's immediate container and outer container or package, as set forth in 21 CFR part 201 and other sections in subpart A and subpart B.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https;www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease.” This guidance is intended to assist sponsors in designing drug development programs to generate the evidence needed to demonstrate efficacy of a targeted therapy across subsets of patients with different underlying molecular alterations within a disease, where some molecular alterations may occur at low frequencies.

In recent years, advances in our understanding of the molecular pathology of many diseases have led to the development of targeted therapies. Although variability in drug response has long been recognized in drug development, targeted therapies present new challenges in addressing the heterogeneity in drug response because the pharmacological effect of a targeted therapy is often related to a particular molecular alteration (e.g., a mutation, gene fusion, epigenetic change, etc.). Many clinically defined diseases are caused by a range of different molecular alterations, some of which may occur at low frequencies, that impact a common protein or pathway involved in the disease pathogenesis. In a population of patients with the same clinical disease, the heterogeneity in the molecular etiology may result in different responses to a particular therapy. However, certain targeted therapies may be effective in multiple groups of patients that have different underlying molecular alterations. Therefore, FDA is providing guidance on the type and quantity of evidence that can demonstrate efficacy across molecular subsets within a disease.

This guidance addresses the following important topics in evaluating the benefits and risks of targeted therapeutics within a disease where some molecular alterations may occur at low frequencies:

In addition to comments on the general content of the draft guidance, FDA requests input on whether the principles described for grouping molecular subsets for clinical trial enrollment should be limited to diseases with low-frequency molecular alterations or whether they could be broadly applicable to all targeted therapies.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

This draft guidance is intended to assist sponsors of clinical investigations of therapeutic products that also include investigational IVDs and IRBs that review such investigations in complying with the IDE regulation. This draft guidance is also intended to assist FDA staff participating in the review of these investigations.

This draft guidance describes when the IDE regulation may apply to certain clinical investigations of therapeutic products; certain regulatory requirements that sponsors should be aware of as they develop and conduct such investigations; recommendations for determining the risk of investigational IVD use in a therapeutic product investigation; recommendations for IRBs in reviewing such investigations; and recommendations for content to provide in an IDE application, when required.

Additionally, FDA is seeking feedback on the policy in the draft guidance regarding the need for an IDE for a significant risk study of an investigational IVD device with a therapeutic product under an IND. Specifically, FDA requests stakeholder perspectives on whether it would be beneficial to allow submission of all IDE components to an IND rather than require both an IDE and an IND. If such an approach would be beneficial, please identify any specific circumstances, for example a companion diagnostic and the associated therapeutic product, where efficiency may be improved or burden may be decreased, or both, without compromising patient safety.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on investigational IVDs used in clinical investigations of therapeutic products. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This draft guidance is also available at https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Investigational IVDs Used in Clinical Investigations of Therapeutic Products” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1400025 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

This draft guidance refers to currently approved collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR 56.115 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; the collections of information in 21 CFR 50.23 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0586; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in the guidance document entitled “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

Section 227 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorizes the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) within NPPD as a “Federal civilian interface for the multi-directional and cross-sector sharing of information related to . . . cybersecurity risks.” 6 U.S.C. 148(c)(1). This authority applies to Federal and non-Federal entities, including the private sector, small and medium businesses, sectors of critical infrastructure, and information sharing organizations. This provision includes the authority to receive, analyze and disseminate information about cybersecurity risks and incidents and to provide guidance, assessments, incident response support, and other technical assistance upon request and codifies NPPD's coordinating role among Federal and non-Federal entities. 6 U.S.C. 148.

As part of its information sharing responsibilities with non-Federal entities, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017 (NDAA) amended the Homeland Security Act to authorize the Department to specifically focus on small businesses. See Public Law 114-328 (2016). Specifically, the NDAA authorizes NPPD, through the Secretary, to “leverage small business development centers to provide assistance to small business concerns by disseminating information on cyber threat indicators, defense measures, cybersecurity risks, incidents, analyses, and warnings to help small business concerns in developing or enhancing cybersecurity infrastructure, awareness of cyber threat indicators, and cyber training programs for employees.” See 6 U.S.C. 148(l)(1); see also 15 U.S.C. 648(a)(8)(A) (similarly authorizing DHS “and any other Federal department or agency in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security” to “leverage small business concerns by disseminating information relating to cybersecurity risks and other homeland security matters to help small business concerns in developing or enhancing cybersecurity infrastructure, awareness of cyber threat indicators, and cyber training programs for employees”).

Consistent with these authorities, E.O. 13636 directs the Department to increase its cybersecurity information sharing efforts with the private sector and consult on and promote the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework. To facilitate the Department's promotion of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, the E.O. directs the Secretary to establish a voluntary program to support the adoption of the Framework in coordination with Sector Specific Agencies, which in turn “shall coordinate with Sector Coordinating Councils to review the Cybersecurity Framework and, if necessary, develop implementation guidance or supplemental materials to address sector-specific risks and operating environments.” E.O. 13636, 78 FR 11739 (2013).

Accordingly, the Information Technology (IT) Sector, represented by industry via the IT Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) and by government via the IT Government Coordinating Council (GCC), established the IT Sector Small and Midsized Business (SMB) Cybersecurity Best Practices Working Group (“Working Group”) to develop best practices for implementing the NIST Cybersecurity Framework in the SMB community. The Working Group, which consists of industry and government representatives, developed the SMB Cybersecurity Survey to determine return on investment (ROI) metrics for NIST Cybersecurity Framework adoption among SMB stakeholders. This process will assess the effectiveness of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. This process will also establish a baseline for ROI metrics, which have not previously existed in the SMB community. The IT Sector-Specific Agency (SSA), headquartered in DHS NPPD CS&C, is supporting the Working Group's survey development.

DHS is not administering, controlling or soliciting the collection of the information via the survey. The IT SCC will administer the survey and anonymize the data, which will then be sent to DHS for analysis. As part of the survey process, the IT SCC will collect point of contact (POC) information but will not include that information on the anonymized dataset they submit to DHS. As specified in more detail below, the IT SCC will not only anonymize the data but will also remove any personally identifiable information (PII) from the data prior to transmitting to DHS. DHS will aid with the statistical analysis where needed, but would not be working with the individual responses to the questionnaire.

The questionnaire will be distributed to SMBs and is a two-part survey. Questions 1-11 of the survey are for an organization's leadership, as these questions pertain to high level information about the company (core function, number of employees, etc.). The remaining questions are intended for the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) or appropriate IT staff, as these questions are technical and ask about the IT security of the company.

As identified above, once the survey is administered by the private sector partners of the IT SCC to the member organizations, the private sector partners of the IT SCC will compile the collected raw inputs and will (a) assign unique random identifiers to each of the responses, (b) scrub any PII from the microdata, (c) conduct quality assurance against the raw input. These processing steps (a-c) will be implemented PRIOR to transmitting the resulting dataset to DHS for statistical analysis. This survey represents a new collection.

DHS will use anonymized data to conduct their analysis. The intent is for DHS to only receive derivative products—anonymized micro-dataset to come up with the summary statistics, or aggregated summary results. The analysis will determine ROI information for NIST Cybersecurity Framework adoption in the SMB community. The results of this analysis will be available to the SMB community to develop best practices on how to use the Cybersecurity Framework for business protection and risk management.

OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Title of Collection: The Department of Homeland Security, Stakeholder Engagement & Cyber Infrastructure Resilience Division.

OMB Control Number: 1670—NEW.

Frequency: Once every five years.

Affected Public: Private sector, Small & Midsize Businesses.

Number of Respondents: 1,000 annually.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 500 annual burden hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $0.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 5, 2017 at 82 FR 41976.

Title of Information Collection: Continuation of Interest Reduction Payments After Refinancing Section 236 Projects.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0572.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-93173 Agreement for Interest Reduction Payments (§ 236(e)(2).

HUD-93175 Agreement for Interest Reduction Payments (§ 236(b)).

HUD-93174 Use Agreement (§ 236(e)(2)).

HUD-93176 Use Agreement (§ 236(b)).

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of this information collection is to preserve low-income housing units. HUD uses the information to ensure that owners, mortgagees and or public entities enter into binding agreements for the continuation of Interest Reduction Payments (IRP) after refinancing eligible Section 236 projects. HUD has created an electronic application for eligible projects to retain the IRP benefits after refinancing.

Respondents: (i.e. affected public) Profit Motivated or Non-Profit Owners of Section 236 Projects.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 875.

Estimated Number of Responses: 2.

Frequency of Response: 1,750.

Average Hours per Response: I hour.

Total Estimated Burden: 1,750.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 5, 2017 at 82 FR 41976.

Title of Information Collection: Housing Counseling Program—Biennial Agency Performance Review.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0574.

Type of Request: Extension.

Form Number: HUD-9910.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: HUD's Office of Housing Counseling participating agencies are non-profit and government organizations that provide housing counseling services. The information collected allows HUD to monitor and provide oversight for agencies participating in the Housing Counseling Program. Specifically, the information collected is used to ensure that participating agencies comply with program policies and regulations and to determine if agencies remain eligible to provide counseling services under HUD's Housing Counseling Program. Housing counseling aids tenants, potential home buyers and homeowners in improving their housing conditions and in meeting the responsibilities of tenancy and homeownership.

Respondents (i.e. Affected Public): Not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 455.

Estimated Number of Responses: 455.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Average Hours per Response: 9.5.

Total Estimated Burden: 4,322.50.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

The new System of Records will encompass data collected by PD&R to evaluate the Section 811 HUD Project Rental Assistance program. The Section 811 Project Rental Assistance program funds a new model of housing assistance that provides funding to state housing agencies to work in partnership with state human services and Medicaid agencies to create community-based supportive housing for extremely low-income nonelderly adults with disabilities, including those who are currently in or at risk for residing in institutions or who are currently (or at risk for becoming) homeless. This study is the second phase of a multiphase evaluation. Phase I documented the implementation experience of the first 12 state housing agencies that were awarded the first round of Project Rental Assistance grants. In Phase II, the evaluation is focused on 6 states selected from 28 state grantees from the first and second rounds of Section 811 Project Rental Assistance funding: California, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, Minneapolis, and Washington. The Phase II evaluation will continue to follow the implementation of the program but will also assess the impact of the program on participants' quality of life and care, housing and neighborhood, and utilization and access to health services and supports, as well as assess the cost-effectiveness of this supportive housing model compared to other models of supportive housing for persons with disabilities.

The new notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records, and the types of exemptions in place for the records. The notice also includes the business address of the HUD officials who will inform interested persons of how they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to themselves.

Publication of this notice allows the Department to provide new information about its system of records notices in a clear and cohesive format. The new system of records will incorporate Federal privacy requirements and Department's policy requirements. The Privacy Act places on Federal agencies principal responsibility for compliance with its provisions, by requiring Federal agencies to safeguard an individual's records against an invasion of personal privacy; protect the records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure; ensure that the records collected are relevant, necessary, current, and collected only for their intended use; and adequately safeguard the records to prevent misuse of such information. In addition, this notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices to protect the personal privacy of the individuals covered by this SORN.

Pursuant to the Privacy Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines, a report of the amended system of records was submitted to OMB, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as instructed by paragraph 4c of Appendix l to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agencies Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” November 28, 2000.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 13, 2017 at 82 FR 43037.

Title of Information Collection: Performing Loan Servicing for the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM).

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0611.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Form Number: HUD-27011, HUD-50002, HUD-50012, HUD-9519-A.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information request is a comprehensive collection of requirements for mortgagees that service Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) mortgages and the HECM mortgagors, who are involved with servicing-related activities that includes collection and payment of mortgage insurance premiums, escrow account administration, providing loan information and customer service.

Respondents (i.e., affected public): Individuals or Household.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Number of Responses: 21,345,282.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Average Hours per Response: 0.07 (4 minutes).

Total Estimated Burdens: 14,941,697.40.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

The Ohio Creek Watershed Project, located in the City of Norfolk, was selected by HUD through the NDRC process and awarded Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding. The proposed action is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because federal CDBG-DR funds would be used for design and construction. The Commonwealth of Virginia, acting through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), is the responsible entity assuming environmental responsibility for the Ohio Creek Watershed Project in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR 58.1(b)(1) and 58.2(a)(7)(i).

This Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS is given in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and represents the beginning of the public scoping process outlined in 40 CFR 1501.7. Following the scoping meeting referenced above, a Draft EIS will be prepared and circulated for public comment. The Draft EIS will be circulated to the general public, as well as groups and government agencies that have been identified as having particular interest in the Proposed Project. A Notice of Availability will be published in local media outlets at that time in accordance with HUD and CEQ regulations.

The Ohio Creek Watershed project is located in Norfolk, Virginia. It is bounded by the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River to the south, the Interstate 264 area to the north, the Norfolk Southern railway to the east and a shipyard along with South Brambleton to the west. Due to its geographic position, Norfolk is faced with the threat of sea level rise. Nuisance flooding from high tides and rain events is becoming more frequent and the risk of inundation from storm surges is increasing. Compounding this threat is a high rate of subsidence. The Ohio Creek NDR project will pursue a multi-faceted, long-term approach to increase safety and resiliency by building coastal defense structures, improving stormwater management, raising critical access roads and infrastructure.

The proposed project consists of an innovative holistic regional resiliency approach that extends beyond infrastructure to encompass community and economic development. This approach is called “thRIVe: Resilience In Virginia” whose core goals are to Build Water Management Solutions, Strengthen Vulnerable Neighborhoods and Improve Economic Vitality. When combined, these goals are intended to Create Coastal Resilience and Unite the Region. Design components of the proposed project consist of: (1) Coastal protection to include a living shoreline and berm, (2) Stormwater management to include raised roads and tide gates, pump stations, bioswales, permeable pavers, rain barrels, and subsurface cisterns, (3) Landscape and Community Amenities to include corridor improvements for multi-modal transit, public pier for river access, stormwater parks to include amenities such as sports fields, playgrounds and fitness stations.

Several project elements have been selected to move to the next level of design. Design elevations of integrated coastal flood protection elements have been established to reduce inundation risk from 100-year events, including nor'easters, hurricanes and extreme tides with a projected sea level rise of +2.5 feet. These elements (berms, living shorelines, etc.) will be aligned to reduce risk for the maximum number of buildings and infrastructure that are most susceptible to coastal inundation.

Stormwater and tides are impounded by existing land bridges within the project site that result in flooding in the surrounding neighborhoods. Integration of tide gate structures into the coastal flood protection and raised roadways will maintain ecological function to wetlands while protecting the neighborhood from tidal flooding events. Ballentine Boulevard and Kimball Terrace are the only two vehicular access routes into the project area and they are both subject to storm surge flooding and nuisance flooding. Additionally, several roads within the community are impassable during heavy rain or high tides due to their low elevation or poor drainage. Raising these critical roads is a key component of the proposed project. Many of the roads will need to be raised to various elevations to work in conjunction with the coastal protection elements. Upgrades to the subsurface drainage systems as well as construction of coastal flood protection will necessitate the need for pump stations to discharge stormwater into the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Drainage system upgrades and additional water storage areas aim to reduce the number of pump stations needed.

Reducing flooding during 10-year rain events is also a principal project goal. Installation of a coastal protection and closing the drainage system to the tides necessitates finding opportunities to slow, store, and infiltrate stormwater. Street interventions are designed to reduce flooding risk, minimize pumping requirements, demonstrate green infrastructure techniques, increase pedestrian access and safety, and beautify neighborhoods. Ballentine Boulevard connects the neighborhood from the river northward to the larger city. A TIDE light rail station is located north of the I-264 underpass and provides connection to the city's light rail system. The Ballentine Boulevard corridor functions as a connector at both a neighborhood and a city scale making it a prime location for the expansion of multi-modal transportation opportunities. The corridor also allows for opportunities to demonstrate innovative stormwater strategies through the use of bioswales along sidewalks, permeable pavers at the edge of streets, in parking lanes and at intersections. Improvements to the corridor would create continuous and improved sidewalk conditions, allowing for both pedestrian and cyclist access from the I-264 underpass to the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, terminating in a public pier. Corridor improvements tie into proposed stormwater parks to provide increased recreational and educational opportunities. Stormwater parks incorporate bioswale plantings with native water plants located in areas where the swale can be expanded to help slow and filter stormwater runoff before it reaches the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Though stormwater parks will be designed to maximize storage, they can also be educational and created in a way that serves as a destination for Norfolk residents by providing premier opportunities for outdoor sports, play, and fitness for citizens of all ages.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action: Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) implementing NEPA, the EIS will examine a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that are potentially feasible. As required by NEPA, the alternatives will be evaluated at the same level of detail as the proposed project. As a result of the scoping efforts to date, the alternatives currently proposed for evaluation in the EIS include:

(1) No Project/Action Alternative. This required alternative would evaluate the environmental impacts if the proposed project were not constructed and existing conditions remain unchanged.

(2) Preferred Alternative. The alternative attaining the most objectives of the project that can be accomplished while also substantially lessening significant environmental effects.

(3) Two other alternatives (to be identified) based on input received during the scoping process and feasible project alternatives that avoid or minimize significant environmental effects.

Probable Environmental Effects: The following topics have been identified for analysis in the EIS for probable environmental effects: coastal zone management, contamination and toxic substances, floodplain management, historic preservation, noise abatement and control, wetlands protection, environmental justice, hazards and nuisances (site safety and noise), vibration, and transportation and accessibility.

Lead Agency: For purposes of complying with NEPA and in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 58, the Commonwealth of Virginia, acting through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, is the Lead Agency and Responsible Entity assuming environmental responsibility for the Ohio Creek Watershed Project. Questions may be directed to the individual named in this notice under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We published a notice, with a 60-day public comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information, in the Federal Register on June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27868). We received the following comments in response to the notice: “We respectfully offer the following scenario on this process from start to finish: (1) Upon demand letter from the ONRR, Fieldwood Energy responds with correspondence requesting the ONRR accept Area-Wide Bonds currently filed with the BOEM for our various entities, which incidentally total excess of $23 million, to secure the nominal Administrative Appeals in lieu of separate specific Appeal bonds. It should be noted that none of the monetary demands from ONRR have come close to exceeding $1 million; (2) In the event, the use of and Area-Wide bond is rejected by ONRR, Fieldwood then must approach the commercial surety market to negotiate terms with prospective sureties for the amount required by ONRR—this may entail the production of recent financial information as well as operational plans on Fieldwood leading up to several calls and discussions with the surety. This may also require the establishment of new relationships with sureties who do not know our company—all of which is time consuming and not done overnight; and (3) Ultimately, Fieldwood obtains a surety bond and files it with your office. So, it is quite customary for this process to take days and not several hours of our staff's time.

“The two burden hours for the majority of the typical requests received are adequate. On some occasions, we might have to have a little more internal dialogue or research if we do not have all the information for the appeal upfront. Generally, those requests fall in the 2-4 hour burden. For the most part, however, 2 hours is generally the amount of burden hours needed. There again, for clarification, this is the internal burden time for our staff. It would take generally 48-72 hours for our surety to turn around the request.

“For WPX who has an existing surety bond line, 2 hours are probably sufficient labor hours. However, for companies that do not have bond line or have used up their capacity, the amount of time spent securing the security bond could take much longer.”

Once again, we are soliciting comments on this ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of ONRR; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of the burden accurate; (4) how might ONRR enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information collected; and (5) how might ONRR minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your Personally Identifiable Information (PII), such as your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information, in your comment(s), you should be aware that your entire comment—including PII—may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us, in your comment, to withhold your PII from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Abstract: The Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior is responsible for collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals from leased Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under various laws, the Secretary's responsibilities are to manage mineral resources production from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collect the royalties and other mineral revenues due, and distribute the funds collected. The Secretary also has a trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and input from Indian beneficiaries. ONRR performs the royalty management functions and assists the Secretary in carrying out the Department's responsibility for Indian lands. We have posted those laws pertaining to mineral leases on Federal and Indian lands and the OCS at http://onrr.gov/Laws_R_D/PubLaws/default.htm.

If ONRR determines that a lessee has not properly reported or paid royalties and other mineral revenues, we may issue an order to pay additional royalties, a Notice of Noncompliance, or a Civil Penalty Notice requiring correct reporting or payment. Lessees then have a right to appeal ONRR determinations.

Implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 1243 govern the suspension of orders or decisions and to stay the accrual of civil penalties (if the Office of Hearings and Appeals grants a lessee's petition to stay accrual of civil penalties), pending administrative appeal for Federal leases. These regulations require an appellant to submit information demonstrating financial solvency in lieu of providing a surety. For those appellants who are not financially solvent or for appeals involving Indian leases, ONRR requires appellants to post a surety instrument to secure the financial interest of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative or judicial appeal process. This ICR covers the burden hours that appellants incur when submitting the financial statements or surety instruments, subject to annual audit, that are required to stay an ONRR order, decision, or accrual of civil penalties.

Title 30 CFR 1243.1 states that lessees or recipients of ONRR orders may suspend compliance with an order if they appeal under 30 CFR part 1290. Pending appeal, ONRR may suspend the payment requirement if the appellant submits a formal agreement of payment in case of default such as a bond or other surety; for Federal oil and gas leases, the appellant may demonstrate financial solvency. If the Office of Hearings and Appeals grants a lessee's, or other recipient of a Notice of Noncompliance or Civil Penalty Notice, request to stay the accrual of civil penalties under 30 CFR 1241.55(b)(2) and 1241.63(b)(2), the lessee or other recipient must post a bond or other surety, or for Federal oil and gas leases, demonstrate financial solvency.

ONRR accepts the following surety types: form ONRR-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond; form ONRR-4436, Letter of Credit; form ONRR-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit; Self-bonding; and U.S. Treasury Securities.

When an appellant selects and puts one of the surety types in place, the appellant must maintain the surety until completion of the appeal. If the appeal is decided in favor of the appellant, ONRR returns the surety to the appellant. If the appeal is decided in favor of ONRR, then we will take action to collect the total amount due or draw down on the surety. We draw down on a surety if the appellant fails to comply with requirements relating to the amount due, timeframe, or surety submission or resubmission. Whenever ONRR must draw down on a surety, we must draw down the total amount due, which is defined as unpaid principal plus the interest accrued to the projected receipt date of the surety payment. Appellants may refer to the Surety Instrument Posting Instructions, which are at http://www.onrr.gov/compliance/appeals.htm.

Appellants may file form ONRR-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond, which ONRR uses to secure the financial interests of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative and judicial appeal process. Under 30 CFR 1243.4, appellants must submit their contact and surety amount information on the bond to obtain the benefit of suspension of an obligation to comply with an order. A surety company that the U.S. Department of the Treasury approves (see Department of the Treasury Circular No. 570, as revised periodically in the Federal Register) must issue the bond. The ONRR Director or the ONRR-delegated bond-approving officer maintains these bonds in a secure facility. After the appeal has concluded, ONRR may release and return the bond to the appellant or collect payment on the bond. If collection is necessary for a remaining balance, ONRR will issue a demand for payment to the surety company with a notice to the appellant. We also will include all interest accrued on the affected bill.

Appellants may choose to file form ONRR-4436, Letter of Credit (LOC), with no modifications. Requirements at 30 CFR 1243.4 continues to apply. The ONRR Director or the ONRR-delegated bond-approving officer maintains the LOC in a secure facility.

The appellant is responsible for verifying that the bank provides a current Fitch rating to ONRR. After the appeal has been concluded, ONRR may release and return the LOC to the appellant or collect payment on the LOC. If collection is necessary for a remaining balance, we will issue a demand for payment, which includes all interest assessed on the affected bill, to the bank with a notice to the appellant.

Appellants may choose to secure a debt using a Certificate of Deposit (CD) from a bank with the required minimum Fitch rating and by submitting form ONRR-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit. Appellants must file the request with ONRR prior to the invoice due date. We will accept a book-entry CD that explicitly assigns the CD to the Director. If collection of the CD is necessary for an unpaid balance, we will return unused CD funds to the appellant after total settlement of the appealed issues including applicable interest charges.

For Federal oil and gas leases, regulations at 30 CFR 1243.201 provides that no surety instrument is required when a person representing the appellant periodically demonstrates to the satisfaction of ONRR, that the guarantor or appellant is financially solvent or otherwise able to pay the obligation. Appellants must submit a written request to “self-bond” every time a new appeal is filed. To evaluate the financial solvency and exemption from requirements of appellants to maintain a surety related to an appeal, ONRR requires appellants to submit a consolidated balance sheet subject to annual audit. In some cases, we also require copies of the most recent tax returns (up to 3 years) that appellants file.

In addition, appellants must annually submit financial statements, subject to audit, to support their net worth. ONRR uses the consolidated balance sheet or business information supplied to evaluate the financial solvency of a lessee, designee, or payor seeking a stay of payment obligation pending review. If appellants do not have a consolidated balance sheet documenting their net worth or if they do not meet the $300 million net worth requirement, ONRR selects a business information or credit reporting service to provide information concerning an appellant's financial solvency. We charge the appellant a $50 fee each time we need to review data from a business information or credit reporting service. The fee covers our costs in determining an appellant's financial solvency.

Appellants may choose to secure their debts by requesting to use a U.S. Treasury Security (TS). Appellants must file the letter of request with ONRR prior to the invoice due date. The TS must be a U.S. Treasury note or bond with maturity equal to or greater than 1 year. The TS must equal 120 percent of the appealed amount plus 1 year of estimated interest (necessary to protect ONRR against interest rate fluctuations). ONRR only accepts a book-entry TS.

The information we collect under this ICR is essential in order to require response from appellants to suspend compliance with an order pending appeal.

We are requesting OMB's approval to continue to collect this information. Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge fiduciary duties and also may result in loss of royalty and other payments. ONRR protects the proprietary information received and does not collect items of a sensitive nature in this ICR.

Title: Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding, 30 CFR part 1243.

OMB Control Number: 1012-0006.

Bureau Form Numbers: ONRR-4435, ONRR-4436, and ONRR-4437.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 105 Federal or Indian appellants.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 105.

Estimated Completion Time per Response: 2 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 210 hours.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Frequency of Collection: Annually and on occasion.

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: There are no additional recordkeeping costs associated with this ICR. However, ONRR estimates that five appellants per year will pay a $50 fee to obtain credit data from a business information or credit reporting service, which is a total “non-hour” cost burden of $250 per year (5 appellants per year × $50 = $250).

We have not included in our estimates certain requirements performed in the normal course of business that are considered usual and customary. The following table shows the estimated burden hours by CFR section and paragraph:

The Commission instituted this investigation on July 1, 2016, based on a Complaint filed by Fujifilm Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts (collectively, “Fujifilm”). 81 FR 43243-44 (July 1, 2016). The Complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the sale for importation, importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic data storage tapes and cartridges containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,641,891 (“the '891 patent”); 6,703,106 (“the '106 patent”); 6,703,101 (“the '101 patent”); 6,767,612 (“the '612 patent”); 8,236,434 (“the '434 patent”); and 7,355,805 (“the '805 patent”). The Complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's Notice of Investigation named as respondents Sony Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, Sony Corporation of America of New York, New York, and Sony Electronics Inc. of San Diego, California (collectively, “Sony”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party to the investigation. The Commission later terminated the investigation as to the '101 patent. Order No. 24 (Jan. 18, 2017); Notice (Feb. 15, 2017).

On September 1, 2017, the ALJ issued his final ID finding a violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the '891 patent and asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '612 patent. The ALJ found no violation of section 337 with respect to asserted claims 9-11 of the '612 patent; asserted claim 2, 5, and 6 of the '106 patent; asserted claim 1 of the '434 patent; and asserted claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent.

In particular, the Final ID finds that Sony's accused products infringe claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14 of the '891 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID also finds that Fujifilm's domestic industry (“DI”) products practice the asserted claims of the '891 Patent, thus Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '891 Patent regarding its LTO-6 and LTO-7 DI products. The Final ID finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '891 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112.

The Final ID finds that Sony's accused products infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '612 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID finds, however, that Fujifilm failed to show that Sony has induced infringement of claims 9-11 of the '612 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). The Final ID further finds that Fujifilm's DI products practice claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-11 of the '612 Patent and, thus, Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '612 Patent regarding its LTO-6 and LTO-7 DI products. The Final ID finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '612 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112.

The Final ID finds that the accused products do not infringe asserted claims 2, 5, and 6 of the '106 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID further finds that neither Fujifilm's LTO-6 nor LTO-7 DI products practice any claim of the '106 Patent, thus Fujifilm has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '106 Patent. The Final ID also finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '106 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, but has shown that the asserted claims of the '106 Patent are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112.

The Final ID finds that the accused products do not infringe asserted claim 1 of the '434 under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID further finds that Fujifilm's LTO-7 DI products do not practice any claim of the '434 Patent, thus Fujifilm has failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '434 Patent. The Final ID finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '434 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112.

The Final ID finds the accused products do not infringe asserted claims 3 and 10 of the '805 Patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Final ID further finds that Fujifilm's LTO-7 DI products practice claims 1, 2, 3, and 10 of the '805 Patent. The Commission notes that the Final ID misstates its finding concerning the technical prong in the Conclusions of Fact and Law with respect to the '805 Patent The Final ID finds that Sony has not shown that the asserted claims of the '805 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, or 112.

The Final ID finds that Fujifilm has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '891, '612, and '106 Patent pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 337(A) and (B) for the asserted LTO-6 DI products. The Final ID finds that Fujifilm has not satisfied the economic prong requirement for the asserted LTO-7 DI products, which Fujifilm asserted alone with respect to the '434 and '805 patents.

The Final ID finds Sony has not shown that the '612, '106, and '805 Patents are essential to the LTO-7 Standard. The Final ID also finds that Fujifilm has not breached any provisions of the Fujifilm AP-75 agreement, in particular §§ 8.2 or 11.11. The Final ID further finds that Sony has not shown that the AP-75 agreement warrants barring Fujifilm's claims or terminating the investigation. The Final ID also finds that patent misuse does apply to bar Fujifilm's claims. The Final ID further finds that Fujifilm has not waived its rights to enforce the patents-in-suit. The Final ID also finds that Sony does not have an implied license to the patents-in-suit. The Final ID further finds that Sony has not shown that patent exhaustion applies.

On September 12, 2017, the ALJ issued his recommended determination on remedy and bonding. As instructed by the Commission, the ALJ also made findings concerning the public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1). See 81 FR 43243. The ALJ recommended that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Sony. The ALJ recommended that the Commission require no bond during the period of Presidential review. The ALJ further found that public interest factors do not bar or require tailoring the recommended exclusion order. The ALJ also found that even if the asserted claims are essential, the public interest does not favor tailoring or curbing and exclusion order because Fujifilm did not breach its obligations under the AP-75 Agreement.

On September 18, 2017, Sony and OUII each filed petitions for review of various aspects of the Final ID. Also on September 18, 2017, Fujifilm filed a contingent petition for review of various aspects of the Final ID.

Sony petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '891 Patent are not invalid as indefinite, anticipated, or obvious. Sony also petitions for review of the Final ID's findings that Sony's accused products infringe the asserted claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the '612 Patent and that the asserted claims of the '612 Patent are not invalid as obvious or indefinite. Sony contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims are not invalid as obvious. Sony also contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's findings that the asserted claim of the '434 Patent is not invalid as indefinite or obvious. Sony further contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's findings that claims 3 and 10 are not invalid as anticipated. Sony also petitions for review of the Final ID's finding regarding Fujifilm's AP-75 Agreement. Sony further petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to its LTO-6 DI products.

OUII petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '434 Patent and that Sony's accused products do not infringe claim 1 of the '434 Patent.

Fujifilm contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's findings that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe claim 1 of the '434 Patent and that Fujifilm's LTO-7 DI products do not satisfy the technical prong with respect to claim 1 of the '434 Patent. Fujifilm also contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '805 Patent. Fujifilm further contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's findings that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe the asserted claims of the '106 Patent, that Fujifilm's LTO products do not satisfy the technical prong with respect to the asserted claims of the '106 Patent, and that the asserted claims of the '106 Patent are invalid as indefinite. Fujifilm also contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's findings with respect to secondary considerations of non-obviousness with respect to the patents-in-suit. Fujifilm further contingently petitions for review of the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has failed to satisfy the economic prong with respect to its LTO-7 DI products.

On September 26, 2017, Fujifilm, Sony, and OUII filed responses to the various petitions for review.

On October 6, 2017, Fujifilm filed a post-RD statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). Sony filed its statement on October 13, 2017. No responses were filed by the public in response to the post-RD Commission Notice issued on September 13, 2017. See Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest (Sept. 13, 2017); 82 FR 43567-68 (Sept. 18, 2017).

Having examined the record of this investigation, including the Final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID in part.

Specifically, the Commission has determined to review-in-part the Final ID's finding of violation with respect to the '891 Patent. In particular, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's findings with respect to anticipation and obviousness. The Commission has further determined to review the Final ID's findings concerning secondary considerations.

The Commission has also determined to review-in-part the Final ID's finding of violation with respect to the '612 Patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '612 Patent are not obvious. Accordingly, the Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm has satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '612 Patent.

The Commission has further determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the '106 Patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined not to review the Final ID's finding that the asserted claims of the '106 Patent are invalid as indefinite. The Commission has also determined to determine to review the Final ID's findings with respect to obviousness, infringement, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

The Commission has also determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the '434 Patent. Specifically the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe claim 1 of the '434 Patent. The Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's finding that Fujifilm's LTO-7 DI products do not practice claim 1. The Commission has further determined to review the Final ID's finding that claim 1 is not obvious.

The Commission has further determined to review-in-part the Final ID's findings with respect to the '805 Patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's finding that Sony's accused LTO-7 products do not infringe asserted claims 3 and 10 of the '805 Patent. The Commission has also determined to review the Final ID's finding that U.S. Patent No. 6,710,967 (“Hennecken”) does not anticipate claims 3 and 10.

The Commission has also determined review the Final ID's findings that the asserted claims of the '612, '106, and '805 Patents are not essential to the LTO-7 Standard.

The Commission has further determined to review the Final ID's findings concerning the economic prong of the domestic industry.

The Commission has determined not to review the remaining issues decided in the Final ID.

The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under review with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is particularly interested in responses to the following questions:

1. With respect to claim 1 of the '434 patent, please address the proper scope of the limitations “a power spectrum density at a pitch of 10 micrometers ranges from 800 to 10,000 nm3 on the magnetic layer surface.” In particular, please explain whether the entirety of the claimed “magnetic layer surface” must exhibit the recited range of power spectrum densities such that a finding of infringement would require that no portion of the claimed “magnetic layer surface” exhibits a power spectrum density outside of the claimed range.

2. With respect to claim 1 of the '434 patent, please address the proper scope of the limitations “a power spectrum density at a pitch of 10 micrometers ranges from 20,000 to 80,000 nm3 on the backcoat layer surface.” In particular, please explain whether the entirety of the claimed “backcoat layer surface” must exhibit the recited range of power spectrum densities such that a finding of infringement would require that no portion of the claimed “backcoat layer surface” exhibits a power spectrum density outside of the claimed range.

3. Please address whether the backcoat layer of the accused products exhibit any power spectrum density values outside of the range recited in claim 1 of the '434 patent.

4. Please address whether the backcoat layer of the asserted domestic industry products exhibit any power spectrum density values outside of the range recited in claim 1 of the '434 patent.

5. Please address whether the magnetic layer of the asserted domestic industry products exhibit any power spectrum density values outside of the range recited in claim 1 of the '434 patent.

6. Please address how the asserted domestic industry products practice the limitation “a first step of encoding data for specifying a servo band where the servo signal positions” recited in claims 3 and 10 of the '805 patent and how, or if, that informs whether the accused products infringe that claim limitation.

7. Please provide a comparison of Fujifilm's domestic revenues to its global revenues for the LTO-6 DI Products for fiscal year 2013-2015, and address whether Fujifilm's domestic investments in the LTO-6 are significant in this context.

The parties have been invited to brief only these discrete issues, as enumerated above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.

In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).

If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. Parties to the investigation, including the Office of Unfair Import Investigations, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainant and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to state the dates that the patents expire, the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported, and any known importers of the accused products. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on December 27, 2017. Initial submissions are limited to 50 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of the public interest. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on January 5, 2018. Reply submissions are limited to 25 pages, not including any attachments or exhibits related to discussion of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1012”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

The Commission has also determined to extend the target date for completion of the above-captioned investigation to February 20, 2018.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

(1) Type of Information Collection: New collection.

(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: Crime Data Explorer Feedback Survey.

(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: No form number. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Law enforcement, academia and the general public. Abstract: This survey is needed to collect feedback on the functionality of the CDE in order to make improvements to the application.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: UCR Crime Data Explorer Burden Estimation: It is estimated the CDE will generate 200 feedback responses per year with an estimated response time of 2 minutes per response.

(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are approximately 7 hours, annual burden, associated with this information collection.

If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

The original Federal Register notice announcing this meeting was published on November 17, 2017, at 82 FR 25011.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2017-021-C.

Petitioner: Rosebud Mining Company, 301 Market Street, Kittanning, Pennsylvania 16201.

Mines: Lowry Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09287 and Heilwood Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09407, located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania; Penfield Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09355, located in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania; and Mine 78, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09371, located in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance), 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords)).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests the previously granted petition for modification, docket number M-2010-023-C be amended to add Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters. The petitioner states that:

(1) Rosebud's original proposal was to use 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 1200 feet when No. 2 American Wire Gauge (AWG) cable was used and 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 950 feet when No. 4 AWG cable was used on Fletcher Roof Ranger II roof bolters.

(2) Rosebud is now requesting that Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters be added to the original granted petition. The Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters use the same No. 2 AWG 480 volt training cables as approved on the bolters listed in the previously granted petition, docket number M-2010-023-C.

(3) The petitioner proposes to use 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 1200 feet when No. 2 AWG cable is used and 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 950 feet when No. 4 AWG cable is used on Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters using the following procedures:

(1) The trailing cable for the 480 volt Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters will not be smaller than No. 4 AWG cable.

(2) All circuit breakers used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cable or the No. 4 AWG trailing cable exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 500 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed to insure that the settings on these breakers cannot be changed, and the breakers will have permanent, legible labels. Each label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting the cables as listed above.

(3) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, used to protect No. 2 AWG trailing cable or the No. 4 AWG trailing cable will be calibrated to trip at 500 amperes, and will be sealed.

(4) All components that provide short-circuit protection will have sufficient interruption rating in accordance with the maximum calculated fault currents available.

(5) During each production day, the trailing cables, and circuit breakers will be examined in accordance with all 30 CFR provisions.

(6) Permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the load center identifying the location of each short-circuit protection device. The labels will warn miners not to change or alter the settings of these devices.

(7) If the affected trailing cables are damaged in any way during the shift, the cable will be deenergized and repairs made.

(8) The petitioner's alternative method will not be implemented until all miners who have been designated to operate the Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolter, or any other person designated to examine the trailing cables or trip settings on the circuit breakers have received proper training as to the performance of their duties.

(9) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for the approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. The proposed revisions will specify task training for miners designated to examine the trailing cables for safe operating condition and verify the short-circuit settings of the circuit interrupting device(s) that protect the affected trailing cables do not exceed the specified setting(s) in Item No. 4. The training will include the following:

a. The hazards of setting the short-circuit device(s) too high to adequately protect the trailing cables.

b. How to verify that the circuit interrupting device(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) is properly set and maintained.

c. Mining methods and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage.

d. The proper procedure for examining the trailing cable to ensure that the cable(s) is in safe operating condition by a visual inspection of the entire cable, observing the insulation, the integrity of the splices, and nicks and abrasions.

The procedure as specified in 30 CFR 48.3 for approval of proposed revisions to already approved training plans will apply.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2017-022-C.

Petitioner: Rosebud Mining Company, 301 Market Street, Kittanning, Pennsylvania 16201.

Mines: Bergholz Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 33-04565, located in Jefferson County, Ohio; Harmony Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09477, located in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania; Dutch Run Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08701, Darmac #2 Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08135, and Logansport Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-08841, located in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania; Knob Creek Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 36-09394, located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania; and Tusky Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 33-04509, located in Tuscarawas County, Ohio.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance), 18.35(a)(5)(i) (Portable (trailing) cables and cords).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests the previously granted petition for modification, docket number M-2011-007-C be amended to add Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters. The petitioner states that:

(1) Rosebud's original proposal was to use 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 1200 feet when No. 2 American Wire Gauge (AWG) cable was used and 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 950 feet when No. 4 AWG cable was used on Fletcher Roof Ranger II roof bolters.

(2) Rosebud is now requesting that Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters be added to the original granted petition. The Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters use the same No. 2 AWG 480 volt training cables as approved on the bolters listed in the previously granted petition, docket number M-2011-007-C.

(3) The petitioner proposes to use 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 1200 feet when No. 2 AWG cable is used and 480 volt trailing cables with a maximum length of 950 feet when No. 4 AWG cable is used on Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters using the following procedures:

(1) The trailing cable for the 480 volt Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolters will not be smaller than No. 4 AWG cable.

(2) All circuit breakers used to protect the No. 2 AWG trailing cable or the No. 4 AWG trailing cable exceeding 700 feet in length will have instantaneous trip units calibrated to trip at 500 amperes. The trip setting of these circuit breakers will be sealed to insure that the settings on these breakers cannot be changed, and the breakers will have permanent, legible labels. Each label will identify the circuit breaker as being suitable for protecting the cables as listed above.

(3) Replacement circuit breakers and/or instantaneous trip units, used to protect No. 2 AWG trailing cable or the No. 4 AWG trailing cable will be calibrated to trip at 500 amperes, and will be sealed.

(4) All components that provide short-circuit protection will have sufficient interruption rating in accordance with the maximum calculated fault currents available.

(5) During each production day, the trailing cables and circuit breakers will be examined in accordance with all 30 CFR provisions.

(6) Permanent warning labels will be installed and maintained on the load center identifying the location of each short-circuit protection device. The labels will warn miners not to change or alter the settings of these devices.

(7) If the affected trailing cables are damaged in any way during the shift, the cable will be deenergized and repairs made.

(8) The petitioner's alternative method will not be implemented until all miners who have been designated to operate the Fletcher Tilt Head Truss Bolter or any other person designated to examine the trailing cables or trip settings on the circuit breakers have received proper training as to the performance of their duties.

(9) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for the approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. The proposed revisions will specify task training for miners designated to examine the trailing cables for safe operating condition and verify the short-circuit settings of the circuit interrupting device(s) that protect the affected trailing cables do not exceed the specified setting(s) in Item No. 4. The training will include the following:

a. The hazards of setting the short-circuit device(s) too high to adequately protect the trailing cables.

b. How to verify that the circuit interrupting device(s) protecting the trailing cable(s) is properly set and maintained.

c. Mining methods and operating procedures that will protect the trailing cables against damage.

d. The proper procedure for examining the trailing cable to ensure that the cable(s) is in safe operating condition by a visual inspection of the entire cable, observing the insulation, the integrity of the splices, and nicks and abrasions.

The procedure as specified in 30 CFR 48.3 for approval of proposed revisions to already approved training plans will apply.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2017-023-C.

Petitioner: Bronco Utah Operations, LLC, P.O. Box 527, Emery, Utah.

Mine: Emery Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 42-00079, located in Emery County, Utah.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002(a) (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of battery-powered nonpermissible electronic testing or diagnostic equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings. The petitioner states that:

(1) The use of nonpermissible low-voltage or battery-powered electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be limited to: Laptop computers; oscilloscopes; vibration analysis machines; cable fault detectors; point temperature probes; infrared temperature devices; voltage, current, and power measurement recorders; pressure and flow measurement devices; signal analyzer devices; ultrasonic thickness gauges; electronic tachometers; and nonpermissible surveying equipment. Other testing and diagnostic equipment may be used if approved in advance by the MSHA District Office.

(2) Nonpermissible testing and diagnostic equipment will be used only when equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.

(3) All other test and diagnostic equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings will be permissible.

(4) All nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment used within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall faces will be examined by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, prior to being used to ensure the equipment is being maintained in safe operating condition. These examinations results will be recorded in the weekly examination of electrical equipment book and will be made available to MSHA and the miners at the mine.

(5) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings. The results of such examination(s) will be recorded as a special examination in the on-shift examination record books immediately after the shift on which the examination(s) were performed.

(6) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When a 1.0 percent or more methane concentration is detected while the nonpermissible electronic equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn to fresh air (intake air entry) more than 150 feet outby pillar workings.

(7) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.

(8) Except for the time necessary to troubleshoot under actual mining conditions, coal production in the longwall section will cease. However, coal may remain in or on the equipment such as the pan line in order to test and diagnose the equipment under “load.”

(9) Nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will not be used to test equipment when float coal dust is in suspension.

(10) All electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be used in accordance with manufacturer's recommended safe use practices.

(11) Qualified personnel who use electronic testing and diagnostic equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with use of the equipment.

(12) The petitioner will notify MSHA before nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment is used within 150 feet of pillar workings. The notice will advise MSHA when any nonpermissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment is put in service and give MSHA the opportunity to inspect such equipment before being used.

(13) Within 60 days after the proposed decision and order (PDO) becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions of the PDO.

The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2017-005-M.

Petitioner: Ernie Peachay, One Arizona Center, 400 East Van Buren Street, Suite 1900, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202.

Mine: Old Smith Family Mine, Second Divide, Downieville, California 95936, MSHA I.D. No. 04-05820, located in Sierra County, California.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.4533 (Mine opening vicinity).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to the Old Smith Family Mine. A small underground gold mine established in the early 1930s. The petitioner states that:

(1) In lieu of the application of 30 CFR 57.4533 to the site, the petitioner proposes to install battery operated smoke alarms in the mine office and shed and to wire them to an alarm underground that will sound so as to immediately notify him of a surface fire in one of the buildings so that he may immediately exit the underground workings.

(2) The mine office and shed are historical structures that were built in the 1930s to support mining activities at the Old Smith Family Mine.

(3) It is not feasible to move these structures to further than 100 feet from the raises, or to meet the construction requirements of the standard. A fire suppression system would also be ineffective due to the freezing temperatures in the winter which disables the few water pipes on site.

(4) The standard as applied to this site provides little to no benefit for underground miner safety because the mine is located in a heavily forested area with trees as tall as 300 feet on the site. The small buildings at issue are dwarfed by the surrounding forest, which cannot be fireproofed.

(5) The underground workings are no more than 125 feet deep at the deepest point, and are so small that they can be evacuated from any point via one of 3 routes in less than 1 minute.

(6) To further reduce the risk of a surface fire impacting the petitioner when underground, smoking will be prohibited in all areas of the mine, and signs will be posted to provide notice to any third parties who may come onsite while he is underground.

(7) The modification to the standard as applied to the Old Smith Family Mine will provide greater safety protection than 30 CFR 57.4533 with respect to the hazard of surface fire impacting underground escapeways by providing an alarm sounding underground as soon as smoke detectors are triggered in the mine office or shed.

The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification.

Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) determines that:

1. An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or

2. That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.

In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.

Docket Number: M-2017-003-M.

Petitioner: Klondex Midas Operations, Inc., 13330 California Street, Suite 200, Omaha, Nebraska 68154.

Mine: Midas Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 26-02314, located in Elko County, Nevada.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.18025 (Working alone).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 57.18025, (Working Alone standard) to the routine operation of jackleg drills at petitioner's Midas Mine.

For the reasons described below, the petitioner requests a modification of the application of the Working Alone standard to the extent that MSHA will permit jackleg drill operators to work alone so long as they do not encounter hazardous conditions above and beyond routine mining conditions. In addition, because MSHA's inconsistent application of the Working Alone standard to the petitioner's mines results in a diminution of safety, the petitioner requests that MSHA grant a modification from the Working Alone standard to allow miners to conduct routine jackleg drilling operations independently as they have in the past. Alternatively, the petitioner requests a modification of the Working Alone standard to accept the petitioner's proposed safety practices, described below, as an alternative and equally protective method of achieving the same result as the standard.

The petitioner states that:

(1) The petitioner owns and operates the Midas Mine, an underground narrow vein gold mine in Elko County, Nevada. It began operating Midas in early 2014. The petitioner owns and operates the Fire Creek Mine, an underground narrow vein gold mine in Lander County, Nevada. Both companies' ultimate corporate parent is Klondex Mines Ltd.

Generally, the mining cycle at both mines involves a miner drilling holes in the face, loading those holes with explosives, blasting, mucking out the debris from the blasting, bolting the roof, and repeating the cycle by drilling holes again, this time in a face that is a few feet farther into the heading. For short periods of time during this cycle, the miner uses a jackleg drill for drilling holes in the face and to bolt the roof.

(2) The petitioner states that jackleg drills are a routine mining tool used safely every day. A jackleg drill is a widely-used portable rock drill designed for one-person operations. The single leg rests on the ground, secured into the mine floor with a “claw foot” that digs into the leveled floor. For drilling, it uses a long, smooth drill steel with a drill bit attached at the end. Compressed air powers the rotation and percussion of the drill steel and the up-and-down movement to extend or retract the pneumatic leg. A miner opens a throttle valve on the drill's main body to allow air to flow into the machine. The air not only drives the machine's operation but also flows through the steel and bit to prevent the bit from clogging with rock and dirt.

There is a safe and proper way to maintain and handle a jackleg drill. An experienced jackleg drill operator handles the drill in a way that requires less effort and poses little risk of serious injury. Experienced miners rarely pinch their fingers in the hinge where the drill's body meets its leg and do not wear loose clothing that could catch in moving parts. Proper drill positioning, examinations of ground conditions, and scaling prevent hazardous ground from falling when drilling up into the roof to bolt. Jackleg drills have been used daily in many mines for decades. The petitioner trains its miners to operate jackleg drills safely and ensures its miners utilize the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) during all steps of the mining process.

(3) During a typical shift, miners use jackleg drills for short periods of time and are in frequent contact with others. Miners at the Klondex mines typically work 12-hour shifts. The first hour is typically spent attending a supervisor-led safety meeting where miners receive their crew assignments and work area assignments, and travel to the faces where they will work. The miners will typically stop mining and leave the work area to travel back to the surface 30 to 60 minutes before their shifts are complete. Consequently, a miner will generally spend only 10 to 101/2 hours of his or her shift actually performing mining work. Some of the miner's time is also spent away from the working face, to travel to the main heading or supply areas for supplies, to take periodic breaks, to offer assistance to others, or to eat lunch.

During his or her shift, a single miner will typically complete approximately one to two full mining cycles, depending on the amount of assistance the miner receives from others, as well as the conditions encountered during mining. Each shift hands off to the next shift; the miner will begin work starting at whatever point in the cycle the previous crew stopped.

While miners often work independently, they are rarely alone for long. Throughout a shift, various people will visit a miner at the face multiple times. For example, the crew supervisor (“foreman” or “shifter”) is tasked with visiting each miner at least twice per shift and sometimes visits more often. While there, the supervisor reviews and signs the miner's workplace examination card. Geologists also usually visit each heading at least once per shift, typically to take samples for assay and to paint the face before each round of blasting. Other miners, and sometimes the supervisor, may also stop by regularly to deliver bolting, blasting, and other supplies, as well as to muck out nearby muck bays.

(4) The petitioner has safety and training policies in place to ensure that miners approach potential hazards and handle equipment, such as drills, safely. Employees must follow petitioner's Employee Health and Safety Manual's requirements to protect against injuries while mining. For instance, miners must wear PPE equipment while operating a jackleg drill and may not wear loose, baggy, or ragged clothing. They must also keep their work areas neat and clean.

Furthermore, miners must evaluate their work area for hazards before they begin each task. When miners encounter a hazard, they must stop work, identify how to address or correct the hazard, report the hazard, and come up with a plan to address the hazard safely. Such a plan will require increased contact with others that is commensurate with the hazard or, if necessary, ceasing work in the area. Supervisors observe a miner's work area at least once daily and fill out a five-point safety card with each miner. This procedure further ensures that potential hazards are identified.

The petitioner's robust safety program also deals with all facets of operating jackleg drills and working alone. All miners must complete training and demonstrate core competencies before they operate a jackleg drill. Miners also receive annual refresher training, which includes topics relevant to drilling, such as keeping workplaces neat and orderly, performing workplace examinations, drilling with secure footing, recognizing and addressing potentially hazardous ground conditions, avoiding pinch points, and responding to hazardous conditions.

(5) The petitioner states that the current communications with miners operating the jackleg drills fully comply with the standard.

The petitioner states that at its mines, a miner operates a jackleg drill for less than 33 percent of the miners' total shift time and that the miner has regular contact with others throughout the shift. Indeed, multiple individuals—supervisors, geologists, and fellow miners—visit the miner at the face, and the miner sees others when leaving the face multiple times each shift. The miner has further contact via mine phones and radios multiple times throughout the shift.

As stated above, miners are in regular contact with others throughout the mining cycle. Consequently, MSHA should modify the application of the Working Alone standard so that the petitioner`s current level of communications easily meets the rule's legal standard, and miners may continue to work independently.

(6) The petitioner states that MSHA's requirement that miners use a jackleg drill in pairs results in a diminution of safety. It has been common practice within the mining industry for jackleg drill operators to work alone if there are not hazardous conditions present. The petitioner states however, that working in pairs reduces safety because the drill operator now not only must worry about handling and operating the drill safely for his own welfare, but must also worry about the whereabouts and exposure of the second person working with the drill operator.

(7) The jackleg drill is designed for one person to operate the machine. It is primarily intended for use where the size and configuration of the ore body or the mining method do not permit large openings to be mined with heavier mechanized equipment. Both the petitioner's mines use jackleg drills precisely because of the relatively small size of the mining face. By requiring the introduction of another person into a small area during drill operation (as opposed to other purposes, such as bringing supplies or checking geology), the field operations becomes more crowded and complicated and the chance of injury necessarily increases, particularly because the second person is not in control of the drill. This is not unique to jackleg drills; it is a danger inherent any time the number of people increases in a small area working around mechanized equipment.

However, there may be circumstances under which a second person in the area could be helpful or, perhaps, even improve safety. The petitioner states that both the Working Alone standard, and the petitioner's safety protocols, account for such situations at petitioner's mines, if jackleg drill operators encounter hazardous conditions, they must seek assistance from their supervisors or a fellow miner and communicate in a manner that is commensurate with the hazard as the Working Alone standard requires. However, the petitioner states that MSHA's own data demonstrates that by requiring mines to “pair up” and work within a certain distance of each other no matter the circumstances, increases the safety risks to other miners.

The petitioner requests that MSHA grant a modification from the Working Alone standard to allow miners to conduct routine jackleg drilling operations independently as they have in the past because MSHA's application of the Working Alone standard to the petitioner's mines is actually less safe.

(8) In the alternative, the petitioner seeks modification of the Working Alone standard to permit miners working alone as long as they follow a new communications policy that will help achieve the same result as the standard intends with the same or better protection. The petitioner seeks a modification of the standard that would permit underground miners to work alone, including operating jackleg drills, so long as the miners notifies a dispatcher or other designated contact person before beginning each stage of the mining cycle.

The petitioner states that its proposed alternative is at least as safe as the Working Alone standard. By requiring its miners to report in to a dispatcher or other designated contact at the beginning of each of the four stages of the mining cycle, such a protocol adds yet one more layer of communication and regular, dependable contact between the miner and others. Combined with the regular visits each underground miner receives from other miners, geologists, and his or her supervisor throughout a shift, as well as the miner's own travels away from the face to access supplies and equipment, such an approach reinforces that miners performing routing mining activity are adequately protected.

(9) The petitioner asserts that application of the standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

Docket Number: M-2017-004-M.

Petitioner: Klondex Gold and Silver Mining Company, 13330 California Street, Suite 200, Omaha, Nebraska 68154.

Mine: Fire Creek Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 26-02691, located in Lander County, Nevada.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 57.18025 (Working alone).

Modification Request: The petitioner requests a modification of 30 CFR 57.18025, (Working Alone standard) to the routine operation of jackleg drills at petitioner's Fire Creek Mine.

For the reasons described below, the petitioner requests a modification of the application of the Working Alone standard to the extent that MSHA will permit jackleg drill operators to work alone so long as they do not encounter hazardous conditions above and beyond routine mining conditions. In addition, because MSHA's inconsistent application of the Working Alone standard to the petitioner's mines results in a diminution of safety, the petitioner requests that MSHA grant a modification from the Working Alone standard to allow miners to conduct routine jackleg drilling operations independently as they have in the past. Alternatively, the petitioner requests a modification of the Working Alone standard to accept the petitioner's proposed safety practices, described below, as an alternative and equally protective method of achieving the same result as the standard.

The petitioner states that:

(1) The petitioner owns and operates the Midas Mine, an underground narrow vein gold mine in Elko County, Nevada. It began operating Midas in early 2014. The petitioner owns and operates the Fire Creek Mine, an underground narrow vein gold mine in Lander County, Nevada. Both companies' ultimate corporate parent is Klondex Mines Ltd.

Generally, the mining cycle at both mines involves a miner drilling holes in the face, loading those holes with explosives, blasting, mucking out the debris from the blasting, bolting the roof, and repeating the cycle by drilling holes again, this time in a face that is a few feet farther into the heading. For short periods of time during this cycle, the miner uses a jackleg drill for drilling holes in the face and to bolt the roof.

(2) The petitioner states that jackleg drills are a routine mining tool used safely every day. A jackleg drill is a widely-used portable rock drill designed for one-person operations. The single leg rests on the ground, secured into the mine floor with a “claw foot” that digs into the leveled floor. For drilling, it uses a long, smooth drill steel with a drill bit attached at the end. Compressed air powers the rotation and percussion of the drill steel and the up-and-down movement to extend or retract the pneumatic leg. A miner opens a throttle valve on the drill's main body to allow air to flow into the machine. The air not only drives the machine's operation but also flows through the steel and bit to prevent the bit from clogging with rock and dirt.

There is a safe and proper way to maintain and handle a jackleg drill. An experienced jackleg drill operator handles the drill in a way that requires less effort and poses little risk of serious injury. Experienced miners rarely pinch their fingers in the hinge where the drill's body meets its leg and do not wear loose clothing that could catch in moving parts. Proper drill positioning, examinations of ground conditions, and scaling prevent hazardous ground from falling when drilling up into the roof to bolt. Jackleg drills have been used daily in many mines for decades. The petitioner trains its miners to operate jackleg drills safely and ensures its miners utilize the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) during all steps of the mining process.

(3) During a typical shift, miners use jackleg drills for short periods of time and are in frequent contact with others. Miners at the Klondex mines typically work 12-hour shifts. The first hour is typically spent attending a supervisor-led safety meeting where miners receive their crew assignments and work area assignments, and travel to the faces where they will work. The miners will typically stop mining and leave the work area to travel back to the surface 30 to 60 minutes before their shifts are complete. Consequently, a miner will generally spend only 10 to 101/2 hours of his or her shift actually performing mining work. Some of the miner's time is also spent away from the working face, to travel to the main heading or supply areas for supplies, to take periodic breaks, to offer assistance to others, or to eat lunch.

During his or her shift, a single miner will typically complete approximately one to two full mining cycles, depending on the amount of assistance the miner receives from others, as well as the conditions encountered during mining. Each shift hands off to the next shift; the miner will begin work starting at whatever point in the cycle the previous crew stopped.

While miners often work independently, they are rarely alone for long. Throughout a shift, various people will visit a miner at the face multiple times. For example, the crew supervisor (“foreman” or “shifter”) is tasked with visiting each miner at least twice per shift and sometimes visits more often. While there, the supervisor reviews and signs the miner's workplace examination card. Geologists also usually visit each heading at least once per shift, typically to take samples for assay and to paint the face before each round of blasting. Other miners, and sometimes the supervisor, may also stop by regularly to deliver bolting, blasting, and other supplies, as well as to muck out nearby muck bays.

(4) The petitioner has safety and training policies in place to ensure that miners approach potential hazards and handle equipment, such as drills, safely. Employees must follow petitioner's Employee Health and Safety Manual's requirements to protect against injuries while mining. For instance, miners must wear PPE equipment while operating a jackleg drill and may not wear loose, baggy, or ragged clothing. They must also keep their work areas neat and clean.

Furthermore, miners must evaluate their work area for hazards before they begin each task. When miners encounter a hazard, they must stop work, identify how to address or correct the hazard, report the hazard, and come up with a plan to address the hazard safely. Such a plan will require increased contact with others that is commensurate with the hazard or, if necessary, ceasing work in the area. Supervisors observe a miner's work area at least once daily and fill out a five-point safety card with each miner. This procedure further ensures that potential hazards are identified.

The petitioner's robust safety program also deals with all facets of operating jackleg drills and working alone. All miners must complete training and demonstrate core competencies before they operate a jackleg drill. Miners also receive annual refresher training, which includes topics relevant to drilling, such as keeping workplaces neat and orderly, performing workplace examinations, drilling with secure footing, recognizing and addressing potentially hazardous ground conditions, avoiding pinch points, and responding to hazardous conditions.

(5) The petitioner states that the current communications with miners operating the jackleg drills fully comply with the standard.

The petitioner states that at its mines, a miner operates a jackleg drill for less than 33 percent of the miners' total shift time and that the miner has regular contact with others throughout the shift. Indeed, multiple individuals—supervisors, geologists, and fellow miners—visit the miner at the face, and the miner sees others when leaving the face multiple times each shift. The miner has further contact via mine phones and radios multiple times throughout the shift.

As stated above, miners are in regular contact with others throughout the mining cycle. Consequently, MSHA should modify the application of the Working Alone standard so that the petitioner's current level of communications easily meets the rule's legal standard, and miners may continue to work independently.

(6) The petitioner states that MSHA's requirement that miners use a jackleg drill in pairs results in a diminution of safety. It has been common practice within the mining industry for jackleg drill operators to work alone if there are not hazardous conditions present. The petitioner states however, that working in pairs reduces safety because the drill operator now not only must worry about handling and operating the drill safely for his own welfare, but must also worry about the whereabouts and exposure of the second person working with the drill operator.

(7) The jackleg drill is designed for one person to operate the machine. It is primarily intended for use where the size and configuration of the ore body or the mining method do not permit large openings to be mined with heavier mechanized equipment. Both the petitioner's mines use jackleg drills precisely because of the relatively small size of the mining face. By requiring the introduction of another person into a small area during drill operation (as opposed to other purposes, such as bringing supplies or checking geology), the field operations becomes more crowded and complicated and the chance of injury necessarily increases, particularly because the second person is not in control of the drill. This is not unique to jackleg drills; it is a danger inherent any time the number of people increases in a small area working around mechanized equipment.

However, there may be circumstances under which a second person in the area could be helpful or, perhaps, even improve safety. The petitioner states that both the Working Alone standard, and the petitioner's safety protocols, account for such situations at petitioner's mines, if jackleg drill operators encounter hazardous conditions, they must seek assistance from their supervisors or a fellow miner and communicate in a manner that is commensurate with the hazard as the Working Alone standard requires. However, the petitioner states that MSHA's own data demonstrates that by requiring mines to “pair up” and work within a certain distance of each other no matter the circumstances, increases the safety risks to other miners.

The petitioner requests that MSHA grant a modification from the Working Alone standard to allow miners to conduct routine jackleg drilling operations independently as they have in the past because MSHA's application of the Working Alone standard to the petitioner's mines is actually less safe.

(8) In the alternative, the petitioner seeks modification of the Working Alone standard to permit miners working alone as long as they follow a new communications policy that will help achieve the same result as the standard intends with the same or better protection. The petitioner seeks a modification of the standard that would permit underground miners to work alone, including operating jackleg drills, so long as the miners notifies a dispatcher or other designated contact person before beginning each stage of the mining cycle.

The petitioner states that its proposed alternative is at least as safe as the Working Alone standard. By requiring its miners to report in to a dispatcher or other designated contact at the beginning of each of the four stages of the mining cycle, such a protocol adds yet one more layer of communication and regular, dependable contact between the miner and others. Combined with the regular visits each underground miner receives from other miners, geologists, and his or her supervisor throughout a shift, as well as the miner's own travels away from the face to access supplies and equipment, such an approach reinforces that miners performing routing mining activity are adequately protected.

(9) The petitioner asserts that application of the standard will result in a diminution of safety to the miners and that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.

OSHA is providing notice that CSA is applying for expansion of its current recognition as a NRTL. CSA requests the addition of seven test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The Agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including CSA, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

CSA currently has seven facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification. Its headquarters location is Canadian Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 1R3, Canada. A complete list of CSA's scope of recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/csa.html.

CSA submitted an application, dated May 23, 2017 (OSHA-2006-0042-0010), to expand its recognition to include seven additional test standards. OSHA staff performed detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.

Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in CSA's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.

Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the Agency evaluates the document to (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the document represents an end product and not a component, and (3) verify the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications).

In this notice, OSHA proposes to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that are new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and proposes to include it in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.

CSA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicate that CSA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these seven test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of CSA's application.

OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, at the above address. These materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042.

OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant CSA's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the Federal Register.

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA is providing notice that MET Laboratories, Inc. MET, is applying for expansion of its current recognition as a NRTL. MET requests the addition of four test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.

OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.

The Agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL, including MET, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

MET currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters location: MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. A complete list of MET's scope of recognition is available at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/met.html.

MET submitted four applications, one dated July 7, 2015 (OSHA-2006-0028-0037), two dated December 14, 2016 (OSHA-2006-0028-0038 and OSHA-2006-0028-0039), and a fourth dated January 11, 2017 (OSHA-2006-0028-0040), to expand its recognition to include four additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.

Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in MET's applications for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.

MET submitted acceptable applications for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent information, indicate that MET can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these four test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of MET's applications.

OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3655, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028.

OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant MET's applications for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.

OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the Federal Register.

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

On October 26, 2017 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit modification request received. The permit modification was issued on December 13, 2017 to: David W. Johnston, Permit No. 2017-034.

The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

1. Docket No(s).: CP2017-275; Filing Title: USPS Notice of Amendment to Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 52, Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December 12, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Timothy J. Schwuchow; Comments Due: December 20, 2017.

2. Docket No(s).: CP2018-85; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Reseller Expedited Package 2 Negotiated Service Agreement; Filing Acceptance Date: December 12, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Timothy J. Schwuchow; Comments Due: December 20, 2017.

This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 389 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-54, CP2018-87.

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 388 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-53, CP2018-86.