Federal Register Vol. 83, No.100,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 100 (May 23, 2018)

Page Range23775-24000
FR Document

83_FR_100
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 23848 - Form CRS Relationship Summary; Amendments to Form ADV; Required Disclosures in Retail Communications and Restrictions on the Use of Certain Names or TitlesPDF
83 FR 23916 - Sunshine Act; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 23922 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Withdrawal of the Assessment Tool for Local GovernmentsPDF
83 FR 23927 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): Responsibility To Conduct Analysis of ImpedimentsPDF
83 FR 23928 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Withdrawal of Notice Extending the Deadline for Submission of Assessment of Fair Housing for Consolidated Plan ParticipantsPDF
83 FR 23788 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics CompanyPDF
83 FR 23903 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 23898 - Notice of 30-day Public Comment Period on an Addendum to the Portland Harbor Damage Assessment PlanPDF
83 FR 23885 - Reporting for Calendar Year 2017 on Offsets Agreements Related to Sales of Defense Articles or Defense Services to Foreign Countries or Foreign FirmsPDF
83 FR 23884 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-School Breakfast ProgramPDF
83 FR 23810 - Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MDPDF
83 FR 23995 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Quarterly Readiness of Strategic Seaport Facilities ReportingPDF
83 FR 23995 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Application and Reporting Elements for Participation in the Maritime Security ProgramPDF
83 FR 23994 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Application for Construction Reserve Fund and Annual Statements (CRF)PDF
83 FR 23985 - Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Extension of ClearancePDF
83 FR 23988 - Determination and Certification Under Section 40A of the Arms Export Control ActPDF
83 FR 23809 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
83 FR 23916 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23996 - Hazardous Materials: Revisions to the Emergency Response GuidebookPDF
83 FR 23990 - HGS Railway Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-HGS-FCR, LLC and HGS-ATN, LLCPDF
83 FR 23991 - HGS-FCR, LLC-Acquisition Exemption-CSX Transportation, Inc.PDF
83 FR 23989 - HGS-ATN, LLC-Acquisition Exemption-CSX Transportation, Inc.PDF
83 FR 23991 - Fulton County Railway, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-HGS-FCR, LLCPDF
83 FR 23989 - Alabama & Tennessee River Railway, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-HGS-ATN, LLCPDF
83 FR 23909 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, HanfordPDF
83 FR 23911 - Notice of Availability of the New Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects: Chapter 12-Water Conveyance and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 23911 - West Texas LPG Pipeline Limited Partnership; Wood River Pipe Lines LLC; Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-DecisionalPDF
83 FR 23807 - Withdrawal of PleadingsPDF
83 FR 23912 - Notice of Supplemental Filing: Kipp, Mary E.PDF
83 FR 23915 - Notice of Request To Vacate Order: Athens Energy, LLCPDF
83 FR 23914 - Notice of Petition for Partial Waiver: Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.; Northern Municipal Power AgencyPDF
83 FR 23911 - Notice Denying Late Intervention; Renewable Energy Aggregators Inc.PDF
83 FR 23941 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Roof Control Plan for Underground Coal MinesPDF
83 FR 23944 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; [Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal MinesPDF
83 FR 23943 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine AtmospheresPDF
83 FR 23941 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardPDF
83 FR 23946 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23903 - Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners To the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting AnnouncementPDF
83 FR 23921 - Solicitation of Nominations for Membership To Serve on the National Advisory Council on the National Health Service CorpsPDF
83 FR 23920 - Enhancement and Update of the National HIV Curriculum e-Learning PlatformPDF
83 FR 23920 - Notice of CorrectionPDF
83 FR 23886 - Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
83 FR 23894 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 23891 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 23895 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 23794 - Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 23999 - Request for Applications for Appointment to the Citizens Coinage Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 23827 - National Bioengineered Food Disclosure StandardPDF
83 FR 23902 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 23899 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 23902 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
83 FR 23993 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 23903 - Notice of Request for Information on Technologies To Support Operations in the Information EnvironmentPDF
83 FR 23904 - Army Science Board Closed Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 23867 - Little Creek Harbor, Fisherman's Cove, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Little Creek, Virginia, Restricted AreasPDF
83 FR 23864 - James River, Skiffes Creek and Warwick River Surrounding Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE-Eustis), Virginia; Restricted Areas and Danger ZonesPDF
83 FR 23909 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak RidgePDF
83 FR 23909 - Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction 4, LLC; Application for Long-Term Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement NationsPDF
83 FR 23947 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 23988 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi, aka Abu Walid al Sahrawi, aka Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahraoui, aka Adnan Abu Waleed al-Sahrawi, aka Lehbib Ould Ali Ould Said Ould Joumani, as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
83 FR 23987 - E.O. 13224 Designation of ISIS in the Greater Sahara (ISIS-GS), aka Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), aka Islamic State of the Greater Sahel, aka ISIS in the Greater Sahel, aka ISIS in the Islamic Sahel, as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
83 FR 23825 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Reopening of the Penaeid Shrimp Fishery Off GeorgiaPDF
83 FR 23936 - Certain Submarine Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 23987 - In the Matter of the Designation of ISIS in the Greater Sahara (ISIS-GS) Also Known as Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) Also Known as Islamic State of the Greater Sahel Also Known as ISIS in the Greater Sahel Also Known as ISIS in the Islamic Sahel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as AmendedPDF
83 FR 23935 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 23988 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Thomas Bayrle: Playtime” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 23988 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Georg Baselitz: Six Decades” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 23989 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Fabergé Rediscovered” Exhibition; Notice of DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 23848 - Elimination of Form 80 and Revision of Regulations on Recreational Opportunities and Development at Licensed Hydropower ProjectsPDF
83 FR 23854 - Geomagnetic Disturbance Reliability StandardPDF
83 FR 23914 - Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process; Sandy Hollow Power Company, Inc.PDF
83 FR 23915 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Realgy, LLCPDF
83 FR 23912 - Notice of Complaint: Monterey MA, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, LLCPDF
83 FR 23913 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 23913 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 23842 - Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap ParticipantsPDF
83 FR 23917 - Enforcement Policy-Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 23918 - Maximal Usage Trials for Topical Active Ingredients Being Considered for Inclusion in an Over-the-Counter Monograph: Study Elements and Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 23999 - Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board, Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 23986 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
83 FR 23934 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Maintenance of State Programs and Procedures for Substituting Federal Enforcement of State Programs and Withdrawing Approval of State ProgramsPDF
83 FR 23968 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Amended by Amendment No. 1, To Support the Re-Launch of NYSE National, Inc. on the Pillar Trading PlatformPDF
83 FR 23948 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 23945 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 23937 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
83 FR 23998 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1099-DIVPDF
83 FR 23981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Introduce the ATR Protection for Orders That Are Routed to Away MarketsPDF
83 FR 23952 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Introduce the ATR Protection for Orders That Are Routed to Away MarketsPDF
83 FR 23966 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Introduce the ATR Protection for Orders That Are Routed to Away MarketsPDF
83 FR 23959 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Simplified ArbitrationPDF
83 FR 23954 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.410(a) To Update the Market Data Source That the Exchange Will Use To Determine the Top of Book Quotation for NYSE National in Anticipation of Its Planned Re-LaunchPDF
83 FR 23956 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 804 To Enhance Anti-Internalization FunctionalityPDF
83 FR 23948 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.4E To Reflect the Standard Settlement Cycle of Two Business Days After the Trade DatePDF
83 FR 23978 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4702(b)(14) To Establish a Price Improvement Only Variation on the Midpoint Extended Life OrderPDF
83 FR 23978 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the Innovator S&P 500 Buffer ETF Series, Innovator S&P 500 Power Buffer ETF Series, Innovator S&P 500 Enhance and Buffer ETF Series, and Innovator S&P 500 Ultra ETF Series Under Rule 14.11(i)PDF
83 FR 23964 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 804 To Enhance Anti-Internalization FunctionalityPDF
83 FR 23950 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 804 To Enhance Anti-Internalization FunctionalityPDF
83 FR 23983 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and ChargesPDF
83 FR 23934 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease COC77678, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 23932 - Notice of Proposed Class II Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease UTU89234, UtahPDF
83 FR 23932 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW177140, WyomingPDF
83 FR 23931 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW184370, WyomingPDF
83 FR 23934 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW180627, WyomingPDF
83 FR 23932 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW180625, WyomingPDF
83 FR 23933 - Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of Public Land in Gilpin County, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 23916 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 23915 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 23928 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 23937 - Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Program Year (PY) 2018 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Section 167, National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP) Proposed Modifications to Allotment FormulaPDF
83 FR 23992 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at Myrtle Beach International Airport, Myrtle Beach, SCPDF
83 FR 23992 - Notice of Intent To Rule on a Request To Release Surplus Property at the Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, SCPDF
83 FR 23908 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 23997 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionPDF
83 FR 23869 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 SeasonPDF
83 FR 23987 - Notice of Renewal of the Advisory Committee on International LawPDF
83 FR 23796 - Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-312; Northeast United StatesPDF
83 FR 23831 - Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; St Marys, GAPDF
83 FR 23798 - Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Erie, PAPDF
83 FR 23813 - Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged LandsPDF
83 FR 23791 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 23778 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 23775 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 23829 - Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 23827 - Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 23905 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23906 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Administrative Matters; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23905 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Earned Value Management System; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23906 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Information Collection in Support of the DoD Acquisition Process (Various Miscellaneous Requirements); Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 23802 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 23799 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 23832 - Traveling by Air With Service AnimalsPDF
83 FR 23804 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air TravelPDF
83 FR 23819 - Clopyralid; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 23780 - Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH AirplanesPDF
83 FR 23888 - Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
83 FR 23890 - Raw Flexible Magnets From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 23907 - Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed AmendmentsPDF

Issue

83 100 Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES National Bio engineered Food Disclosures Standard, 23827 2018-11025 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Army Science Board, 23904-23905 2018-11018 Requests for Information: Technologies to Support Operations in the Information Environment, 23903-23904 2018-11019 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23916-23917 2018-11056 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD, 23810-23812 2018-11072 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 23842-23847 2018-10995 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23903 2018-11092 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23906-23907 2018-10905 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Administrative Matters, 23906 2018-10908 Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, 23905-23906 2018-10911 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Earned Value Management System, 23905 2018-10906 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

See

Engineers Corps

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 23908 2018-10952 Manual for Courts-Martial, 23907-23908 2018-09949
Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Program Year 2018 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Section 167, National Farmworker Jobs Program Proposed Modifications to Allotment Formula, 23937-23940 2018-10955 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Authority to Export Liquefied Natural Gas; Applications: Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction 4, LLC, 23909-23911 2018-11013 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford, 23909 2018-11048 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge, 23909 2018-11014
Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Restricted Areas and Danger Zones: James River, Skiffes Creek and Warwick River surrounding Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE-Eustis), VA, 23864-23866 2018-11016 Restricted Areas: Little Creek Harbor, Fisherman's Cove, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Little Creek, VA, 23867-23869 2018-11017 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Clopyralid, 23819-23825 2018-10693 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 23791-23794 2018-10922 Airbus Helicopters, 23778-23780 2018-10921 CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines, 23794-23796 2018-11027 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes, 23780-23788 2018-10580 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, 23788-23791 2018-11133 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 23775-23778 2018-10920 Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Erie, PA, 23798-23799 2018-10939 Modification of VOR Federal Airway: V-312; Northeast United States, 23796-23798 2018-10947 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 23799-23804 2018-10817 2018-10818 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters, 23827-23829 2018-10918 Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters, 23829-23831 2018-10919 Revocation of Class E Airspace: St Marys, GA, 23831-23832 2018-10946 NOTICES Airport Property Releases: Greenwood County Airport, Greenwood, SC, 23992 2018-10953 Myrtle Beach International Airport, Myrtle Beach, SC, 23992-23993 2018-10954 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Withdrawal of Pleadings, 23807-23808 2018-11045 PROPOSED RULES Elimination of Form 80 and Revision of Regulations on Recreational Opportunities and Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects, 23848-23854 2018-11002 Geomagnetic Disturbance Reliability Standard, 23854-23864 2018-11001 NOTICES Combined Filings, 23913-23914 2018-10996 2018-10997 Complaints: Monterey MA, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 23912-23913 2018-10998 Designations of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional: West Texas LPG Pipeline Limited Partnership; Wood River Pipe Lines LLC, 23911 2018-11046 Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects: Chapter 12—Water Conveyance, 23911-23912 2018-11047 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Realgy, LLC, 23915 2018-10999 Late Intervention; Denials: Renewable Energy Aggregators Inc., 23911 2018-11041 License Applications: Sandy Hollow Power Co., Inc., 23914-23915 2018-11000 Petitions for Partial Waivers: Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.; Northern Municipal Power Agency, 23914 2018-11042 Requests to Vacate Orders: Athens Energy, LLC, 23915 2018-11043 Supplemental Filings: Kipp, Mary E., 23912 2018-11044 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23993-23994 2018-11020 2018-11021 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 23916 2018-10958 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 23915-23916 2018-10957 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 23916 2018-11206 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska: Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands, 23813-23819 2018-10938 PROPOSED RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season, 23869-23883 2018-10949 NOTICES Endangered Species Recovery Permit; Applications, 23928-23931 2018-10956 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Enforcement Policy—Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products Marketed Without an Approved Application, 23917-23918 2018-10994 Maximal Usage Trials for Topical Active Ingredients Being Considered for Inclusion in an Over-the-Counter Monograph, 23918-23920 2018-10993 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: School Breakfast Program, 23884-23885 2018-11073 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 23997-23998 2018-10951 Forest Forest Service RULES Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska: Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands, 23813-23819 2018-10938 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Challenge Competitions: Improving Remote Monitoring of Pregnancy; etc.; Corrections, 23920-23921 2018-11032 Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Council on the National Health Service Corps, 23921-23922 2018-11034 Single-Source Funding Awards: Enhancement and Update of the National HIV Curriculum e-Learning Platform, 23920 2018-11033 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Responsibility to Conduct Analysis of Impediments, 23927-23928 2018-11145 Withdrawal of Notice Extending the Deadline for Submission of Assessment of Fair Housing for Consolidated Plan Participants, 23928 2018-11143 Withdrawal of the Assessment Tool for Local Governments, 23922-23927 2018-11146 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Reporting for Calendar Year 2017 on Offsets Agreements Related to Sales of Defense Articles or Defense Services to Foreign Countries or Foreign Firms, 23885 2018-11074 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23998-23999 2018-10981 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico, 23886-23888 2018-11031 Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China, 23891-23894 2018-11029 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 23895-23898 2018-11028 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 23894-23895 2018-11030 Raw Flexible Magnets from the People's Republic of China, 23890-23891 2018-10564 Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products from the People's Republic of China, 23888-23890 2018-10566 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Human Milk Oligosaccharides and Methods of Producing the Same, 23935-23936 2018-11006 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Submarine Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof, 23936-23937 2018-11008 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 23937 2018-10983 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease: COC77678, Colorado, 23934 2018-10968 UTU89234, Utah, 23932-23933 2018-10967 WYW180625, Wyoming, 23932 2018-10962 WYW180627, Wyoming, 23934 2018-10963 Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases: WYW177140, Wyoming, 23932 2018-10966 WYW184370, Wyoming, 23931 2018-10965 Realty Actions: Direct Sale of Public Land in Gilpin County, CO, 23933-23934 2018-10960 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application and Reporting Elements for Participation in the Maritime Security Program, 23995 2018-11070 Application for Construction Reserve Fund and Annual Statements, 23994-23995 2018-11069 Quarterly Readiness of Strategic Seaport Facilities Reporting, 23995-23996 2018-11071 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines, 23944-23945 2018-11039 Notification of Methane Detected in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mine Atmospheres, 23943-23944 2018-11038 Roof Control Plan for Underground Coal Mines, 23941 2018-11040 Petitions for Modifications of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 23941-23943 2018-11037 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 23945-23946 2018-10984 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Shrimp Fishery off Southern Atlantic States; Reopening of Penaeid Shrimp Fishery off Georgia, 23825-23826 2018-11009 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Portland Harbor Damage Assessment Plan, 23898-23899 2018-11075 Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 23902-23903 2018-11022 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 23902 2018-11024 Permanent Advisory Committee to Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 23903 2018-11035 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 23899-23902 2018-11023 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 23946-23947 2018-11036 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, 23809-23810 2018-11064 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: Revisions to the Emergency Response Guidebook, 23996-23997 2018-11055 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 23947-23948 2018-11012 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 23948 2018-10985 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Form CRS Relationship Summary and Form ADV: Required Disclosures in Retail Communications and Restrictions on the use of Certain Names or Titles, 23848 C1--2018--08583 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 23978 2018-10972 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 23959-23963 2018-10977 Investors Exchange LLC, 23954-23956 2018-10976 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 23952-23954, 23964-23966 2018-10971 2018-10979 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 23950-23952, 23966-23968 2018-10970 2018-10978 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 23956-23959, 23981-23983 2018-10975 2018-10980 NYSE American LLC, 23948-23950 2018-10974 NYSE Arca, Inc., 23983-23985 2018-10969 NYSE National, Inc., 23968-23978 2018-10986 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 23978-23981 2018-10973 Selective Selective Service System NOTICES Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Extension of Clearance, 23985-23986 2018-11066 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Matching Programs, 23986-23987 2018-10988 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on International Law Charter, 23987-23988 2018-10948 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Faberge Rediscovered, 23989 2018-11003 Georg Baselitz—Six Decades, 23988 2018-11004 Thomas Bayrle—Playtime, 23988 2018-11005 Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: ISIS in the Greater Sahara, 23987 2018-11007 Designations as Global Terrorists: Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahrawi, aka Abu Walid al Sahrawi, aka Adnan Abu Walid al-Sahraoui, aka Adnan Abu Waleed al-Sahrawi, aka Lehbib Ould Ali Ould Said Ould Joumani, 23988-23989 2018-11011 ISIS in the Greater Sahara, 23987 2018-11010 Determinations under the Arms Control Act, 23988 2018-11065 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Maintenance of State Programs and Procedures for Substituting Federal Enforcement of State Programs and Withdrawing Approval of State Programs., 23934-23935 2018-10987 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition Exemptions: HGS-ATN, LLC; CSX Transportation, Inc., 23989-23990 2018-11052 HGS-FCR, LLC; CSX Transportation, Inc., 23991-23992 2018-11053 Continuance in Control Exemptions: HGS Railway Holdings, Inc.; HGS-FCR, LLC and HGS-ATN, LLC, 23990-23991 2018-11054 Lease and Operation Exemptions: Alabama and Tennessee River Railway, LLC; HGS-ATN, LLC, 23989 2018-11050 Fulton County Railway, LLC; HGS-FCR, LLC, 23991 2018-11051 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 23804-23807 2018-10814 PROPOSED RULES Traveling by Air with Service Animals, 23832-23842 2018-10815
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 23999 2018-11026 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Veterans and Community Oversight and Engagement Board, 23999-24000 2018-10991 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

83 100 Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0446; Product Identifier 2018-NM-069-AD; Amendment 39-19288; AD 2018-10-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and detailed inspections, as applicable, for cracking of certain aft vertical stiffeners; repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of time-limited repairs, as applicable; a one-time HFEC inspection for cracking of the keel beam upper chord inboard flanges; a one-time general visual inspection for cracking of a certain angle; and applicable on-condition actions. This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the left-side and right-side keel beam upper chords and aft vertical stiffeners. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 7, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 7, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by July 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Fax: 202-493-2251.

Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0446.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0446; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We have received a report indicating that cracks were discovered in the left-side and right-side keel beam upper chords and both aft vertical stiffeners on an airplane that had accumulated 1,304 flight cycles since the aft vertical stiffeners had been inspected in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1269. The Boeing Company has done an analysis of the affected structure and found that the actual stresses on aft vertical stiffeners at left buttock line (LBL) and right buttock line (RBL) 6.15 are more than those used to design the structure. The increased stresses cause fatigue cracks in the stiffeners. If the aft vertical stiffeners have cracks or are severed, the fatigue damage may extend into the adjacent keel beam structure. The Boeing Company has determined that the existing inspections in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, required by AD 2005-20-01, Amendment 39-14294 (70 FR 56358, September 27, 2005) (“AD 2005-20-01”), do not provide sufficient inspection intervals for timely crack detection in the aft vertical stiffeners. Cracking of the aft vertical stiffeners, if not addressed, could result in the inability of the keel beam structure to sustain required flight loads, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

We have determined that both AD 2005-20-01 and this AD must be done in order to address the identified unsafe condition. Boeing plans to issue a revision to Service Bulletin 737-57A1269 in the near future and at that time we may consider superseding AD 2005-20-01.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018. The service information describes procedures for repetitive surface HFEC and detailed inspections for cracking of the aft vertical stiffeners; repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of time-limited repairs; a one-time surface HFEC inspection for cracking of the keel beam upper chord inboard flanges and a general visual inspection for cracking of the associated angle; and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

This AD requires accomplishing the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0446.

Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins. In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

Interim Action

We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring the replacement of the vertical stiffeners on certain airplanes, which would constitute terminating action for certain inspections required by this AD action. The planned compliance time for replacing the vertical stiffeners would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the modification.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the keel beam upper chords could result in the inability of the keel beam structure to sustain required flight loads, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0446 and Product Identifier 2018-NM-069-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Surface HFEC and detailed inspections of aft vertical stiffeners (for Configuration 1 airplanes) 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle $0 $170 per inspection cycle Up to $11,390 per inspection cycle. Detailed inspection of aft vertical stiffeners and time-limited repair (for Configuration 2 airplanes) 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 0 $170 per inspection cycle Up to $11,390 per inspection cycle. Surface HFEC inspection of the keel beam upper chord inboard flanges and a general visual inspection of the angle (for all airplanes) 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 0 $170 $11,390.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-10-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19288; Docket No. FAA-2018-0446; Product Identifier 2018-NM-069-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 7, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings; 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the left-side and right-side keel beam upper chords and aft vertical stiffeners. Cracks in the aft vertical stiffeners may lead to the inability of the keel beam structure to sustain required flight loads, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(h) Required Actions for Group 2 Airplanes

Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, at the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018.

Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1339, dated April 16, 2018, which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, uses the phrase “the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.

(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing, this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Optional Terminating Action for Repetitive Inspections

Removal of the time-limited repair and accomplishment of additional actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, terminate the repetitive inspections of the aft vertical stiffeners and time-limited repair, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018, and required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB, dated April 16, 2018.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 11, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10920 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3883; Product Identifier 2014-SW-029-AD; Amendment 39-19289; AD 2018-11-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters. This AD requires installing a cut-out for the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) rail support junction profiles and inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on frame 5295 and on splices installed to prevent those cracks. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 27, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of June 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3883.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3883; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On January 5, 2016, at 81 FR 191, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Model AS332L2 and Model EC225LP helicopters with an extended aluminum splice installed on frame 5295. The NPRM proposed to require installing a cut-out for the LH and RH rail support junction profiles and inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a crack in frame 5295, which could lead to structural failure of the frame and loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2014-0098-E, dated April 25, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters. EASA AD No. 2014-0098-E applies to helicopters with a frame 5295 that have been reinforced by installing aluminium splices on the RH and LH fuselage external skins. EASA advises of a report of a crack that initiated on a splice in an area hidden by the overlapping junction profile of the cabin sliding door rail support and then spread to the frame.

EASA states that a crack in frame 5295, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of structural integrity of the helicopter frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To address this condition, EASA issued AD No. 2014-0098-E to require repetitive inspections of the splices for a crack, as well as cutting out the rail support junction profiles to provide a convenient access to identify cracks in a splice.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service has changed its organizational structure. The new structure replaces product directorates with functional divisions. We have revised some of the office titles and nomenclature throughout this Final rule to reflect the new organizational changes. Additional information about the new structure can be found in the Notice published on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34564).

Comments

After our NPRM was published, we received comments from a commenter who raised three issues.

Request

The commenter requested that we revise the applicability of the AD to exempt helicopters that are “post mod 07 26493 or RDAS 332-1284-13.”

We partially agree. Modification (MOD) 0726493 or repair design approval sheet (RDAS) 332-1284-13 specify installing a stainless steel doubler to reduce stress in the splice and frame, thereby eliminating the unsafe condition. We disagree with exempting “post mod” helicopters, however, as the stainless steel doubler could be removed (subjecting the helicopter again to the unsafe condition) and the helicopter would still be in a “post mod” configuration. Instead, we have changed the applicability to exempt helicopters with the steel splice kit installed that pertains to MOD 0726493.

The commenter requested that we revise the compliance time of the AD to include the flow charts from the Airbus Helicopters service information. The commenter states that this information would explain the steps involved to operators to eliminate the unsafe condition. The commenter also requested that we clarify the compliance times as discussed in the preamble of the NPRM, because they appear different from those in the service information and the EASA AD.

We disagree. The commenter is correct that the compliance times in our AD are different, in some measure, to those in the EASA AD. But the compliance times in the AD are clear as written. The requested change is unnecessary.

The commenter requested that we withdraw the AD because all helicopters in the U.S. fleet have either installed the cut-out or are scheduled for installation of the cut-out.

We disagree. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists. AD action is required to mandate corrective action for this unsafe condition. In addition, if additional helicopters are imported into the United States, AD action is necessary to require that those helicopters accomplish the corrective actions before operating in this country.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the change described previously and with a revision to the estimated costs of complying with this AD. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters if there is a crack in the affected parts. This AD makes no such requirement.

The EASA AD sets various timelines for repairing affected parts if a crack exists. This AD requires repairing affected parts before further flight if a crack exists.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC225-05A038 for Model EC225LP helicopters and ASB No. AS332-05.00.97 for Model AS332L2 helicopters. The ASBs, both Revision 0 and both dated April 15, 2014, report cracks were found in the splice and frame 5295 on a Model AS332L2 helicopter during a major inspection. The splice had been added in compliance with MOD 0726517. Had an optional rail support cut-out been accomplished on the aircraft to allow for a visual check of the splice for frame 5295, it would have revealed the crack in the splice, prompting its repair and consequently limiting the damage to frame 5295. As a result, the ASBs call for the rail support cut-out on the RH and LH side of the frame as well as periodic visual inspections of frame 5295 and related equipment.

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

Other Related Service Information

We reviewed Eurocopter Helicopters (now Airbus Helicopters) Service Bulletin (SB) No. 53-003, Revision 4, for Model EC225LP helicopters and SB No. 53.01.52, Revision 5, for Model AS332L2 helicopters, both dated July 23, 2010. The SBs specify procedures to reinforce frame 5295 by installing a new titanium plate underneath the fitting and a new widened aluminum splice below the upper corner of the door. We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters SB No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, for Model EC225LP helicopters, which proposes that you cut out the junction profiles to perform periodic visual inspections.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

Installing the cut-outs on frame 5295 requires 40 work-hours for a labor cost of $3,400. Parts cost $5,000 for total cost per helicopter of $8,400 and $33,600 for the U.S. fleet.

Inspecting helicopter frame 5295 requires 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170 per helicopter. No parts are needed for a total U.S. fleet cost of $680 per inspection cycle.

Repairing a splice requires 40 work-hours and a parts cost of $5,000 for a total cost of $8,400 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-11-01 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19289; Docket No. FAA-2015-3883; Product Identifier 2014-SW-029-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Model AS332L2 and Model EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category, with an extended aluminum splice installed on frame 5295, except helicopters with steel splice kit part number 332A08-2649-3072 installed.

Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD:

Helicopters with Modification (MOD) 0726517 have an extended aluminum splice installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on helicopter frame 5295. This condition could result in structural failure of the frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective June 27, 2018.

(d) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

(1) Before a splice reaches 1,700 hours time-in-service (TIS), within 50 hours TIS, or before the helicopter reaches 11,950 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, do the following:

(i) Install the rail support cut-out and identify the right-hand and left-hand junction profile in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2, of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC225-05A038, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014 (ASB EC225-05A038), or ASB No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014 (ASB AS332-05.00.97), whichever is applicable to your helicopter.

(ii) Inspect each splice for a crack in the area depicted as Area Y in Figure 3 of ASB EC225-05A038 or ASB AS332-05.00.97, whichever is applicable to your helicopter. If a crack exists, repair or replace the splice before further flight.

(2) Thereafter at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS, inspect each splice for a crack in the area depicted as Area Y in Figure 3 of ASB EC225-05A038 or ASB AS332-05.00.97. If a crack exists, repair or replace the splice before further flight.

(f) Credit for Actions Previously Completed

Installing rail support cut-outs in accordance with MOD 0728090 or Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, before the effective date of this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

(1) Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin (SB) No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, and Eurocopter Helicopters (now Airbus Helicopters) SB No. 53-003, Revision 4, and SB No. 53.01.52, Revision 5, both dated July 23, 2010, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may view the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0098-E, dated April 25, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-3883.

(i) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5310, Fuselage Main, Structure.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC225-05A038, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014.

(ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 0, dated April 15, 2014.

(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 16, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10921 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0188; Product Identifier 2018-CE-002-AD; Amendment 39-19285; AD 2018-10-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-12, AD 2017-11-08, and AD 2017-15-09 for certain Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due to failure of the propeller-regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 12, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 12, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of May 31, 2017 (82 FR 24843, May 31, 2017) and August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35630, August 1, 2017).

We must receive comments on this AD by July 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Fax: (202) 493-2251.

Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straβe 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0188.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0188; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued AD 2017-01-12, Amendment 39-18779 (82 FR 5359, January 18, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-12”); AD 2017-11-08, Amendment 39-18907 (82 FR 24843, May 31, 2017) (“AD 2017-11-08”), and AD 2017-15-09, Amendment 39-18969 (82 FR 35630, August 1, 2017) (“AD 2017-15-09”). Those ADs required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

Since we issued AD 2017-01-12, AD 2017-11-08, and AD 2017-15-09, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued a new AD.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2017-0254, dated December 21, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Two cases were reported of uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) on DA 42 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigation identified that these occurrences were due to failure of the propeller regulating valve, caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. The initiating cracks on the exhaust pipes were not detected during previous inspections, since those exhaust pipes are equipped with non-removable heat shields that do not allow inspection for certain sections of the exhaust pipe.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of IFSD or overheat damage, possibly resulting in a forced landing, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) developed an exhaust pipe without a directly attached integral heat shield that allows visual inspection over the entire exhaust pipe length. DAI issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 42-120 and relevant Working Instruction (WI) WI-MSB 42-120, providing instructions to install the modified exhaust pipes. As an interim measure, an additional bracket was designed to hold the exhaust pipe in place in case of a pipe fracture. EASA issued AD 2016-0156 (later revised), requiring replacement of the exhaust pipes with pipes having the new design, or installation of the additional brackets.

After EASA AD 2016-0156R1 was issued, cracks were found during inspection on modified exhaust pipes. Further investigation determined that, with the modified exhaust pipe design, vibration leads to cracking. Consequently, DAI published MSB 42-129, providing instructions for inspection of modified exhaust pipes, and EASA issued AD 2017-0090, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0156R1, which was superseded, and additionally requiring repetitive inspections of modified exhaust pipes and, depending on findings, repair or replacement.

After EASA AD 2017-0090 was issued, cracks were found on additional brackets, as previously installed per DAI WI-MSB 42-120. Prompted by these findings, DAI revised MSB 42-120 and the relevant part of WI-MSB 42-120 (now at Revision 4), providing improved instructions for the installation of brackets, and additional instructions to inspect those brackets. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0120, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0090, which was superseded, and additionally requiring those actions for the additional brackets. That [EASA] AD also required reinstallation of the additional brackets in accordance with improved instructions.

Since EASA AD 2017-0120 was issued, it has been determined that installation of additional exhaust pipe brackets, combined with additional inspections, is the most adequate solution to address the original unsafe condition, while it was also established that the modified exhaust pipes without directly attached heat shield are not adequate as replacement parts. Durability analysis of the design is still under investigation and further improvements in the exhaust design are expected.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0120, which is superseded, removing the option to install a modified exhaust pipe without direct heat shield, and adding inspection requirements for aeroplanes modified in accordance with Section III.2 of DAI WI-MSB 42-120 Revision 3 or later (installation of additional brackets), and for aeroplanes on which an exhaust pipe with directly attached heat shield was re-installed in accordance with DAI OSB 42-131.

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0188.

Relative Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) has issued Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 4, dated December 20, 2018, Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017, and Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017. DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 4, dated December 20, 2018, have identical procedures for installing additional engine exhaust pipe clamps with spring washers on original engine exhaust pipes. DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 4, dated December 20, 2018, also includes procedures for inspecting the original engine exhaust pipe for cracks. DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017, describes procedures for inspecting the modified engine exhaust pipe for cracks. DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017, describes procedures for replacing either the original or the modified engine exhaust pipe if cracks are found. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because affected engine exhaust pipes could crack and cause hot gases to leak from fractured exhaust pipes and lead to an uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0188; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-002-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 130 products of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect engine exhaust pipe 2 work-hours × $85 = $170 N/A $170 $22,100 Install additional engine exhaust pipe clamps with spring washers 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 (for both clamps) $100 (for both clamps) 440 57,300 Inspect engine exhaust pipe clamps 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 N/A 170 22,100

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that will be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace cracked engine exhaust pipe 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $1,900 Replace cracked engine exhaust pipe clamps 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 (for both clamps) $100 (for both clamps) $440

    We estimate that 20 of the affected airplanes have the “modified exhaust pipes,” Diamond Aircraft Industries P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01, installed that may be subject to replacement by this AD and 110 of the affected airplanes are subject to the initial installation of additional engine exhaust pipe clamps and spring washers, inspections, and the conditional replacement requirement of this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18779 (82 FR 5359, January 18, 2017), Amendment 39-18907 (82 FR 24843, May 31, 2017), and Amendment 39-18969 (82 FR 35630, August 1, 2017) and adding the following new AD: 2018-10-10 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-19285; Docket No. FAA-2018-0188; Directorate Identifier 2018-CE-002-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 12, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces 2017-01-12, Amendment 39-18779 (82 FR 5359, January 18, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-12”); AD 2017-11-08, Amendment 39-18907 (82 FR 24843, May 31, 2017) (“AD 2017-11-08”), and AD 2017-15-09, Amendment 39-18969 (82 FR 35630, August 1, 2017) (“AD 2017-15-09”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes, serial numbers 42.004 through 42.427 and 42.AC001 through 42.AC151, certificated in any category, that have either a TAE 125-02-99 or TAE 125-02-114 engine installed, and:

    (1) are equipped with an original engine exhaust pipe, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) part number (P/N) D60-9078-06-01 or Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, 52-7810-H0001 04; or

    (2) are equipped with a modified engine exhaust pipe DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify 52-7810-H0014 01.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 78: Engine Exhaust.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. It has been determined that installation of additional exhaust pipe brackets, combined with additional inspections, is the most adequate solution to address the original unsafe condition, while it was also established that the modified exhaust pipes without directly attached heat shield are not adequate as replacement parts. Durability analysis of the design is still under investigation and further improvements in the exhaust design are expected. For these reasons, this AD removes the option to install a modified exhaust pipe without direct heat shield, adds inspection requirements for airplanes modified in accordance with Section III.2 of Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) WI-MSB 42-120 Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017 (installation of additional brackets), and for airplanes on which an exhaust pipe with directly attached heat shield was re-installed in accordance with DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due to failure of the propeller regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller regulating valve, which could result in forced landing, consequent damage and occupant injury.

    (f) Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

    (1) An airplane is only required to have the actions of either (g) or (h) of this AD accomplished depending on the configuration.

    (2) For the purpose of this AD, if the flight hours accumulated since first installation of an affected exhaust pipe or additional exhaust pipe clamp is not known, use the total hours time-in-service (TIS) accumulated on the airplane.

    (g) Actions for Airplanes With Installed Original Engine Exhaust Pipes as of June 12, 2018 (the Effective Date of This AD)

    See Appendix 1 to AD 2018-10-10 for a chart of required actions. An original engine exhaust pipe is defined in paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable compliance time in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspect the installed engine exhaust pipe. Do this inspection following section III.4—Inspection of exhaust pipe in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017.

    (i) If the engine exhaust pipe has 1,300 hours TIS or less since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Before or upon accumulating 1,500 hours TIS since the engine exhaust pipe was first installed on an airplane, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS.

    (ii) If the engine exhaust pipe has more than 1,300 hours TIS since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Within the next 200 hours TIS after June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-service (TIS).

    (2) During any inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if the engine exhaust pipe does not pass the inspection criteria, before further flight replace the engine exhaust pipe following section III.1—Re-installation of Exhaust Pipes with Directly Attached Heat Shield in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017 (which includes installing additional engine exhaust pipe clamps, an exhaust sheet, and incorporates spring washers). After replacement continue with the 500-hour TIS repetitive inspections.

    (i) If only the engine exhaust pipe heat shield is loose, a one-time single weld is allowed following section III.3—Repair of Heat Shields of DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01/Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 03 and 52-7810-H0001 04 in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017. After a repair of the heat shield, if a single weld point is subsequently found cracked, the heat shield is considered to be loose and the exhaust pipe must be replaced. After replacement or repair, continue with the 500-hour TIS repetitive inspections.

    (ii) Engine exhaust pipes re-qualified following section III.2—Re-Qualification of Exhaust Pipes DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01/Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, or 52-7810-H0001 04 in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017, are considered to have accumulated 1,500 hours TIS.

    (3) Before further flight after the initial inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and if no cracks were found or a repair to the exhaust pipe heat shield was done as required in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, then install additional engine exhaust pipe clamps, DAI P/Ns D60-7806-00-01 and D60-7806-00-02, and exhaust sheet, P/N D60-7806-00-03, and incorporate spring washers. Do the installations following III.2 Action 2—installation of additional exhaust clamp in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017. See figure 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this AD for additional information on the sequence of installation actions as identified in DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017 and Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017.

    ER23MY18.000

    (4) During any engine exhaust pipe clamp and exhaust sheet with spring washer installation/replacement required in paragraphs (g)(2), (3), (6), and (7) of this AD, if the exhaust clamp assembly cannot be installed without side force using step 10 of III.2 Action 2—installation of additional exhaust clamp in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017, before further flight contact the FAA at the address specified in paragraph (i) of this AD to obtain and incorporate an FAA-approved repair/modification approved specifically for this AD. The FAA will coordinate with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and DAI for the development of a repair/modification to address the specific problem.

    (5) At the applicable compliance time in paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, remove and inspect each engine exhaust clamp for cracks. Do this inspection following III.3 Action 3—Inspection of exhaust clamp for cracks of the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017.

    (i) If the engine exhaust pipe clamp has less than 40 hours TIS since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Before or upon accumulating 50 hours TIS since the engine exhaust pipe clamp was first installed on an airplane.

    (ii) If the engine exhaust pipe clamp has 40 hours TIS or more since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Within the next 10 hours TIS after June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD).

    (6) Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD and no crack is found, reinstall the engine exhaust pipe clamp, and incorporate spring washers following III.2 Action 2—installation of additional exhaust clamp in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017. See figure 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this AD for additional information on the sequence of installation actions as identified in DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, and or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017. Continue with the 25-hour TIS repetitive inspection as long as no cracks are found.

    (7) Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD and a cracked engine exhaust pipe clamp is found, replace the cracked engine exhaust pipe clamp with a new engine exhaust pipe clamp and incorporate spring washers following the service instructions specified in paragraph (g)(6) of this AD. All newly installed engine exhaust pipe clamps are subject to an initial 50-hour TIS and repetitive 25-hour TIS inspections for cracks following the service instructions specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.

    (h) Actions for Airplanes With Installed Modified Engine Exhaust Pipes as of June 12, 2018 (the Effective Date of This AD)

    See Appendix 2 to AD 2018-10-10 for a chart of required actions. A modified engine exhaust pipe is defined in paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD.

    (1) At the applicable compliance time in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect each engine exhaust pipe for cracks. Do this inspection following I.9 Accomplishment/Instructions in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017.

    (i) If the engine exhaust pipe has less than 40 hours TIS since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Before or upon accumulating 50 hours TIS since the affected engine exhaust pipe was first installed on an airplane, repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS.

    (ii) If the engine exhaust pipe has 40 hours TIS or more since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Within the next 10 hours TIS after June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS.

    (2) If a crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight replace the engine exhaust pipe with an engine exhaust pipe, DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01 or Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, or 52-7810-H0001 04. Do the replacement following section III.1—Re-installation of Exhaust Pipes with Directly Attached Heat Shield in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017, which includes installing additional engine exhaust pipe clamps, an exhaust sheet, and incorporates spring washers.

    (3) After installing an engine exhaust pipe, DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01 or Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, or 52-7810-H0001 04 (which includes installing additional engine exhaust pipe clamps, an exhaust sheet, and incorporates spring washers), repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS. Do this inspection following section III.4—Inspection of exhaust pipe in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017.

    (4) During any inspection required in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, if the engine exhaust pipe does not pass the inspection criteria, before further flight replace the engine exhaust pipe following section III.1—Re-installation of Exhaust Pipes with Directly Attached Heat Shield in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017 (which includes installing additional engine exhaust pipe clamps, an exhaust sheet, and incorporates spring washers). After replacement, continue with the 500-hour TIS repetitive inspections.

    (i) If only the engine exhaust pipe heat shield is loose, a one-time single weld is allowed following section III.3—Repair of Heat Shields of DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01/Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 03 and 52-7810-H0001 04 in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017. After a repair of the heat shield, if a single weld point is subsequently found cracked, the heat shield is considered to be loose and the exhaust pipe must be replaced. After replacement or repair, continue with the 500-hour TIS repetitive inspections.

    (ii) Engine exhaust pipes re-qualified following section III.2—Re-Qualification of Exhaust Pipes DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01/Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, or 52-7810-H0001 04 in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017, are considered to have accumulated 1,500 hours TIS.

    (5) During any engine exhaust pipe clamp, exhaust sheet with spring washer installation/replacement required in paragraphs (h)(2), (4), (7), and (8) of this AD, if the exhaust clamp assembly cannot be installed without side force using step 10 of III.2 Action 2—installation of additional exhaust clamp in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017, before further flight contact the FAA at the address specified in paragraph (i) of this AD to obtain and incorporate an FAA-approved repair/modification approved specifically for this AD. The FAA will coordinate with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and DAI for the development of a repair/modification to address the specific problem.

    (6) At the applicable compliance time in paragraphs (h)(6)(i) and (ii) of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, remove and inspect each engine exhaust clamp for cracks. Do this inspection following III.3 Action 3—Inspection of exhaust clamp for cracks of the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017.

    (i) If the engine exhaust pipe clamp has less than 40 hours TIS since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD): Before or upon accumulating 50 hours TIS since the engine exhaust pipe clamp was first installed on an airplane.

    (ii) If the engine exhaust pipe clamp has 40 hours TIS or more since first installed on an airplane as of June 12, 2018

    (the effective date of this AD): Within the next 10 hours TIS after June 12, 2018 (the effective date of this AD).

    (7) Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (h)(6) of this AD and no crack is found, reinstall the engine exhaust pipe clamp and incorporate spring washers following III.2 Action 2—installation of additional exhaust clamp in the INSTRUCTIONS section of DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017. See figure 2 to paragraph (g)(7) of this AD for additional information on the sequence of installation actions as identified in DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017, and or Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017. Continue with the 25-hour TIS repetitive inspection as long as no cracks are found.

    ER23MY18.001

    (8) Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (h)(6) of this AD and a cracked engine exhaust pipe clamp is found, replace the cracked engine exhaust pipe clamp with a new engine exhaust pipe clamp and incorporate spring washers following the service instructions specified in paragraph (h)(7) of this AD. All newly installed engine exhaust pipe clamps are subject to an initial 50-hour TIS and repetitive 25-hour TIS inspections for cracks following the service instructions specified in paragraph (h)() of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No. 2017-0254, dated December 21, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0188.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 12, 2018.

    (i) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 4, dated December 20, 2017.

    (ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-OSB 42-131, dated December 20, 2017.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 31, 2017 (82 FR 24843, May 31, 2017).

    (i) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB-42-129, dated May 17, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35630, August 1, 2017).

    (i) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, Revision 3, dated July 6, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (6) For Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Strasse 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com.

    (7) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0188.

    (8) You may view the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ER23MY18.002 ER23MY18.003
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 11, 2018. Melvin J. Johnson, Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation Division, AIR-601.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10580 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0447; Product Identifier 2018-NM-080-AD; Amendment 39-19290; AD 2018-11-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes; and Model P3A, P-3A, and P3B airplanes type certificated under various other type certificate holders. Certain variants of Model 188A and 188C airplanes are known as “P-3” series airplanes. P-3 series airplanes include but are not limited to Model CP-140, NP-3A, P3A, P-3A, P3B, P-3B, P-3C, P-3P, and WP-3D airplanes. This AD requires a borescope inspection of the aileron control rod assembly to determine if threads exist on the aileron control rod body, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that certain aileron control rod bodies were incorrectly machined so that they did not include the load-carrying threads in the bore of the aileron control rod body. As a result, aileron control rod assemblies, which contain the discrepant part, do not provide adequate load carrying capabilities. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 23, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 23, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Customer Support Center, Dept. 3E1M, Zone 0591, 86 S Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-9131; email [email protected]; internet https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/mmro/customer-support-center.html. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0447.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0447; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5587; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that certain aileron control rod bodies, part number (P/N) 826999-3, were incorrectly machined so that they did not include the load-carrying threads in the bore of the aileron control rod body. As a result, aileron control rod assemblies, P/N 826998-3, which contain the discrepant part, do not provide adequate load carrying capabilities. A number of these discrepant parts have been found installed on operational airplanes.

    The discrepant aileron control rod bodies, P/N 826999-3, were machined with a smooth internal bore rather than with 7/8-inch internal threads to engage the mating part. The missing 7/8-inch internal threads are intended to transmit the aileron control loads. The incorrectly machined aileron control rod assemblies, P/N 826998-3, are held together with a single threaded #10 (0.190-inch diameter) screw that is not intended to carry aileron control forces.

    Failure of the aileron control rod assembly, or loss or failure of the #10 (0.190-inch diameter) screw holding the left (or right) aileron control rod assembly together, if not addressed, will result in loss of aileron authority, and could result in the jamming of both left and right ailerons, and loss of control of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Aircraft Maintenance Bulletin M0017R2, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a borescope inspection of the aileron control rod assembly to determine if threads exist on the aileron control rod body. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, and replacement of the aileron control rod assembly with a serviceable assembly.

    Difference Between Service Information and AD

    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Aircraft Maintenance Bulletin M0017R2, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2018, recommends that the inspection be performed before the next flight. This AD, however, allows 3 days after the effective date of the AD to do this inspection. We have determined that 3 days will allow affected operators time for an orderly inspection of their fleet and still provide an acceptable level of safety.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the aileron control rod assembly, or loss or failure of the #10 (0.190-inch diameter) screw holding the left (or right) aileron control rod assembly together, will result in loss of aileron authority, and could result in the jamming of both left and right ailerons, and loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0447 and Product Identifier 2018-NM-080-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this final rule.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 $340 $8,500

    We estimate the following costs to replace any aileron control rod assembly that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 $1,600 $2,365
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-11-02 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and various other type certificate holders: Amendment 39-19290; Docket No. FAA-2018-0447; Product Identifier 2018-NM-080-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 23, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes; and Model P3A, P-3A, and P3B airplanes type certificated under various other type certificate holders; certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    Certain variants of Model 188A and 188C airplanes are known as “P-3” series airplanes. P-3 series airplanes include but are not limited to Model CP-140, NP-3A, P3A, P-3A, P3B, P-3B, P-3C, P-3P, and WP-3D airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that certain aileron control rod bodies, part number (P/N) 826999-3, were incorrectly machined so that they did not include the load-carrying threads in the bore of the aileron control rod body. As a result, aileron control rod assemblies, P/N 826998-3, which contain the discrepant part, do not provide adequate load carrying capabilities. We are issuing this AD to address failure of the aileron control rod assembly, or loss or failure of the #10 (0.190-inch diameter) screw holding the left (or right) aileron control rod assembly together, which will result in loss of aileron authority, and could result in the jamming of both left and right ailerons, and loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection

    Within 3 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a borescope inspection of the aileron control rod assembly, P/N 826998-3, to determine if threads exist on the aileron control rod body, P/N 826999-3, in accordance with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Aircraft Maintenance Bulletin M0017R2, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2018. If the inspection indicates missing threads on the aileron control rod body, before further flight, replace the aileron control rod assembly with a serviceable part. A serviceable aileron control rod assembly is one that has been inspected in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph and found to have internal threads on the aileron control rod body.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Guidance on replacing the aileron control rod assembly can be found in Lockheed Martin Aircraft Maintenance Manual Sections 27-2-2 AILERON PRIMARY CONTROL CABLES, Maintenance Practices, Rigging of Aileron Primary Control Cable System; 27-2-3 AILERON PUSH-PULL TUBES, BRACKETS AND BELLCRANKS, Maintenance Practices, Aileron Push-Pull Tubes, Brackets and Bellcranks, Remove/Replace/Adjust/Rig; and 27-2-4 AILERON, Maintenance Practices, Removal/Installation/Adjustment/Lubrication aileron.

    (h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an aileron control rod assembly, P/N 826998-3, on any airplane, unless the aileron control rod assembly is serviceable as defined in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Reporting Provisions

    Although Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Aircraft Maintenance Bulletin M0017R2, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2018, recommends that inspection reports be submitted to Lockheed, this AD does not require that action.

    (j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Atlanta ACO Branch, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5587; fax: 404-474-5606; email: [email protected]

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Aircraft Maintenance Bulletin M0017R2, Revision 2, dated May 10, 2018 (only the first page contains the date).

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Customer Support Center, Dept. 3E1M, Zone 0591, 86 S Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-9131; email [email protected]; internet https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/business-areas/aeronautics/mmro/customer-support-center.html.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 17, 2018. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11133 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0238; Product Identifier 2018-SW-018-AD; Amendment 39-19265; AD 2018-06-51] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and AW119 MKII helicopters. This AD requires removing a certain swashplate support (support) from service. This AD is prompted by an error in a parts catalog incorrectly identifying the support as approved for installation on Model AW109SP helicopters. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective June 7, 2018 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2018-06-51, issued on March 19, 2018, which contains the requirements of this AD.

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0238; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

    Discussion

    On March 19, 2018, we issued Emergency AD 2018-06-51 to address an unsafe condition on Agusta S.p.A. Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and AW119 MKII helicopters with a support part number (P/N) 109-0110-05-101 installed. Emergency AD 2018-06-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. Emergency AD 2018-06-51 requires removing the supports from service and re-identifying spherical sleeve assembly (sleeve) P/N 109-0134-02-103.

    Emergency AD 2018-06-51 was prompted by an error in a parts catalog that incorrectly identifies support P/N 109-0110-05-101 as approved for installation on Model AW109SP helicopters. Support P/N 109-0110-05-101 is made of aluminum alloy and is approved for installation on Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, but is not approved for installation on Model AW109SP helicopters. The approved support for Model AW109SP helicopters is made of steel. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the support and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued AD No. No. 2018-0053-E, dated March 8, 2018, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (previously Agusta S.p.A.) Model AW109SP helicopters. The EASA AD advises that support P/N 109-0110-05-101, which is not eligible for installation on Model AW109SP helicopters, was erroneously listed in the Model AW109SP parts catalog. EASA states that this may have led to inadvertent installations of the support in service on a Model AW109SP helicopter. The EASA AD requires replacing the support and re-identifying the P/N on the identification plate of the sleeve if the P/N is not P/N 109-0134-02-105. Sleeve P/N 109-0134-02-105 is composed of the steel support. The EASA AD also prohibits installing the support on any Model AW109SP helicopter. EASA states that its AD actions are intended to prevent failure of the support, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

    The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta S.p.A.'s name change to Leonardo S.p.A. on its FAA type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta S.p.A. as the type certificate holder.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109SP-119, dated March 7, 2018. This service information specifies replacing support P/N 109-0110-05-101 with support P/N 109-0134-29-101. This service information also specifies inspecting the sleeve identification plate and depending on the findings, replacing and re-identifying the identification plate.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires removing support P/N 109-0110-05-101 from service that is or has been installed on a Model AW109SP helicopter. If sleeve P/N 109-0134-02-103 is installed, this AD requires re-identifying the P/N of the sleeve on Model AW109SP helicopters. This AD also prohibits installing support P/N 109-0110-05-101 on any Model AW109SP helicopter.

    Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    This AD requires removing a support installed on a Model AW109SP helicopter from service before further flight, while the compliance time in the EASA AD depends on the flight hours of the support. This AD applies to Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters and requires removing the support installed on these models from service if previously installed on a Model AW109SP helicopter. The EASA AD does not apply to these models or contain this requirement for supports previously installed on a Model AW109SP helicopter.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 266 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

    Replacing a support takes about 10 work-hours and parts cost about $6,288 for an estimated cost of $7,138 per helicopter. Re-identifying a sleeve identification plate takes about 0.5 work-hour and the parts cost is minimal for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter.

    According to Leonardo Helicopter's service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Leonardo Helicopters. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2018-06-51, issued on March 19, 2018, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the required corrective actions must be accomplished before further flight or within 5 hours time-in-service, depending on the model helicopter. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-06-51 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19265; Docket No. FAA-2018-0238; Product Identifier 2018-SW-018-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, A119, AW109SP, and AW119 MKII helicopters, certificated in any category, with a swashplate support (support) part number (P/N) 109-0110-05-101 installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as installation of a support that does not meet type design. This condition could result in failure of a support and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 7, 2018 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2018-06-51, issued on March 19, 2018, which contains the requirements of this AD.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) For Model AW109SP helicopters, before further flight:

    (i) Remove the support from service.

    (ii) If spherical sleeve assembly (sleeve) P/N 109-0134-02-103 is installed, re-identify the sleeve by permanently changing the P/N on the identification plate to P/N 109-0134-02-105.

    (2) For Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E, A109K2, A109S, A119, and AW119 MKII helicopters, within 5 hours time-in-service, remove support P/N 109-0110-05-101 from service if it has ever been installed on a Model AW109SP helicopter.

    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install support P/N 109-0110-05-101 on any Model AW109SP helicopter.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 109SP-119, dated March 7, 2018, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2018-0053-E, dated March 8, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2018-0238.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230, Main Rotor Mast/Swashplate.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 11, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10922 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0429; Product Identifier 2018-NE-13-AD; Amendment 39-19287; AD 2018-09-51] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for CFM International, S.A., (CFM) CFM56-7B model engines. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of CFM CFM56-7B model engines. This AD requires a one-time ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the concave and convex sides of the fan blade dovetail. This AD was prompted by a recent engine failure due to a fractured fan blade, which resulted in the engine inlet cowl disintegrating and debris penetrating the fuselage, causing a loss of pressurization, and prompting an emergency descent. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective June 7, 2018 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2018-09-51, issued on April 20, 2018, which contained the requirements of this amendment.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May 14, 2018 (83 FR 19176, May 2, 2018).

    We must receive comments on this AD by July 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-3272; fax: 877-432-3329; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0429.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0429; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    On April 20, 2018, we issued Emergency AD 2018-09-51, which requires a one-time USI of the concave and convex sides of the fan blade dovetail. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these CFM CFM56-7B model engines. This action was prompted by a recent engine failure due to a fractured fan blade. There was one passenger fatality as a result of the event. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the engine inlet cowl disintegrating and debris penetrating the fuselage, causing a loss of pressurization, and prompting an emergency descent.

    Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018. The service information describes procedures for performing a USI for cracks of the fan blade dovetail and removal of cracked fan blades from service. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires a one-time USI of the concave and convex sides of the fan blade dovetail.

    Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018, provides actions for engines with fewer than 30,000 flight cycles, but this AD does not affect those engines. The service information also specifies repetitive inspections, but this AD does not require that the inspection be repeated. We published AD 2018-09-10 (83 FR 19176, May 2, 2018), which addresses those differences.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2018-09-51, issued on April 20, 2018, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these engines. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the USI must be performed within 20 days. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0429 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-13-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this final rule.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 532 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect engine fan blade 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $90,440

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace fan blade 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $8,500 $8,585
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-09-51 CFM International S.A.: Amendment 39-19287; Docket No. FAA-2018-0429; Product Identifier 2018-NE-13-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 7, 2018 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2018-09-51, issued on April 20, 2018, which contained the requirements of this amendment.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all CFM International, S.A., (CFM) CFM56-7B20, -7B22, -7B24, -7B26, -7B27, -7B22/B1, -7B24/B1, -7B26/B1, -7B26/B2, -7B27/B1, -7B27/B3, -7B20/3, -7B22/3, -7B24/3, -7B26/3, -7B27/3, -7B22/3B1, -7B24/3B1, -7B26/3B1, -7B26/3B2, -7B26/3F, -7B26/3B2F, -7B27/3B1, -7B27/3B3, -7B27/3F, -7B27/3B1F, -7B20E, -7B22E, -7B24E, -7B26E, -7B27E, -7B22E/B1, -7B24E/B1, -7B26E/B1, -7B26E/B2, -7B26E/F, -7B26E/B2F, -7B27E/B1, -7B27E/B3, -7B27E/F, -7B27E/B1F, -7B20/2, -7B22/2, -7B24/2, -7B26/2, -7B27/2, -7B27A, -7B27AE, and -7B27A/3 engine models, with 30,000 or more total accumulated flight cycles since new, as of April 20, 2018.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by recent event involving an engine failure, resulting in the engine inlet cowl disintegrating, debris penetrating the fuselage causing a loss of pressurization and prompting an emergency descent. There was one passenger fatality as a result of the event. We are issuing this AD to address fan blade failure due to cracking, which could result in an engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD), uncontained release of debris, damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and possible airplane decompression.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection

    (1) Within 20 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time ultrasonic inspection of all 24 fan blade dovetail concave and convex sides to detect cracking.

    (2) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(3)(a) through (i), of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018, to perform the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If any unserviceable indication, as specified in CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018, is found during any inspection required by this AD, remove the affected fan blade from service before further flight.

    (i) No Reporting Required

    Although CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018, specifies to report findings, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before receipt of this AD using CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1019, dated March 24, 2017; or Revision 1, dated June 13, 2017; or CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1024, dated July 24, 2017.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. You may email your request to [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(3)(i) and (k)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7120; fax: 781-238-7199; Email: [email protected]

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 19176, May 2, 2018).

    (i) CFM International, S.A., (CFM) Service Bulletin CFM56-7B S/B 72-1033, dated April 20, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For CFM service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-3272; fax: 877-432-3329; email: [email protected]

    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 18, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11027 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0149; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Modification of VOR Federal Airway V-312; Northeast United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies the description of VOR Federal airway V-312 by removing a maximum authorized altitude (MAA) limitation published along the airway segment between the Woodstown, NJ, VORTAC, and the Coyle, NJ, VORTAC. The MAA is no longer required for air traffic control purposes and the FAA is removing it in order to improve the efficient flow of air traffic in the Philadelphia, PA area.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, July 19, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11 Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies VOR Federal airway V-312 to improve the efficient flow of air traffic.

    History

    VOR Federal airway V-312 extends between a point at the intersection of the Andrews, MD, VORTAC 060° radial, and the Baltimore, MD, VORTAC 165° radial (i.e., the charted POLLA fix); and the intersection of the Coyle, NJ, VORTAC 090° radial, and the Kennedy, NY, VOR/DME 154° radial (i.e., the charted PREPI fix).

    In 1972, FAA inserted a maximum authorized altitude (MAA) of 8,000 feet MSL along the segment of V-312 between the Woodstown, NJ, VORTAC, and the Coyle, NJ, VORTAC (37 FR 15424; August 2, 1972). This was an air traffic control limitation for the purpose of facilitating the clearing of enroute traffic from over the Coyle VORTAC into the Philadelphia, PA, terminal area. The normal altitude structure for VOR Federal airways extends from 1,200 feet above ground level (or higher) up to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL. Today, the 8,000-foot MSL MAA limitation on V-312 is obsolete and hampers the orderly transition of aircraft from the terminal to the enroute environment due to ATC automation system constraints. In addition, this results in increased workload for air traffic controllers.

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway listed in this document will be subsequently amended in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing an obsolete MAA limitation from the description of V-312. The description is modified by removing the words “The airspace within R-5002D, the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States, and the airspace above 8,000 feet MSL between Woodstown and Coyle is excluded.” and adding in its place “The airspace within R-5002D, and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States, is excluded.” This action does not affect the current alignment of V-312.

    Because this amendment is necessary to remove an obsolete altitude limitation that impedes the orderly transition of aircraft from the terminal to enroute environment in the Philadelphia, PA, area, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impractical and contrary to the public interest.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying the description of VOR Federal airway V-312 by removing a maximum authorized altitude (MAA) limitation published along the airway segment between the Woodstown, NJ, VORTAC, and the Coyle, NJ, VORTAC qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways. V-312 [Amended]

    From INT Andrews, MD, 060° and Baltimore, MD, 165° radials, via INT Andrews 060° and Woodstown, NJ, 230° radials; Woodstown; INT Woodstown 065° and Coyle, NJ, 264° radials; Coyle; INT Coyle 090° and Kennedy, NY, 154° radials. The airspace within R-5002D, and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States, is excluded.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2018. Rodger A. Dean, Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10947 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1195; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-24] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Erie, PA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, by updating the name to Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, Erie, PA. This action also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface in Erie, PA, by updating the name to St. Vincent Health Center Heliport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport and heliport, and replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the legal descriptions of associated Class D and E airspace to match the FAA's aeronautical database. The Class E surface airspace is further clarified showing removal of the extensions, and the Class E extension airspace is further clarified showing removal of the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) language.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, July 19, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave, College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace in the Erie, PA area, to support IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures at Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, and St. Vincent Health Center Heliport.

    History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (83 FR 8210, February 26, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1195 to amend Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field and St. Vincent Health Center Heliport, Erie, PA.

    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    The FAA further clarifies the rule by adding that the Class E surface airspace extensions are removed from the legal description, and the part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) language is removed from the Class E extension airspace legal description. There is no practical change to the airspace as proposed by the FAA, only that we are revising it because it did not accurately describe what we proposed.

    Except as described above, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace, and Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, by updating the airport name to Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field (formerly Erie International Airport). The geographic coordinates of the airport, in all airspace classes are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Also, this action removes the airspace extensions from the Class E surface airspace legal description of the airport as it duplicates the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area (which is now continuous). This action also removes the part-time NOTAM language from the Class E airspace designated as an extension (inadvertently omitted in the NPRM).

    Additionally, this action makes an editorial change to the airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Chart Supplement” in the associated airspace.

    This action also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by updating the airport name to Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field (formerly Erie International Tom Ridge Field Airport), and the heliport name to St. Vincent Health Center Heliport (formerly Life Star Base Heliport), Erie, PA, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 71 —DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA PA D Erie, PA [Amended] Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA (Lat. 42°04″59″ N, long. 80°10′26″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA PA E2 Erie, PA [Amended] Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA (Lat. 42°04′59″ N, long. 80°10′26″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA PA E4 Erie, PA [Amended] Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA (Lat. 42°04′59″ N, long. 80°10′26″ W) Erie VORTAC (Lat. 42°01′03″ N, long. 80°17′34″ W) Erie Localizer RWY 6 (Lat. 42°05′30″ N, long. 80°09′22″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface extending northeast of the Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field 4.2-mile radius from within 4 miles northwest of the Erie VORTAC 054° radial to 3.5 miles southeast of the Erie ILS localizer northeast course then extending southwest from a point located along the Erie localizer northeast course 9.2 miles northeast of lat. 42°07′30″ N, long. 80°05'36”W, to the 4.2-mile radius of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Erie, PA [Amended] Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, PA (Lat. 42°04′59″ N, long. 80°10′26″ W) St. Vincent Health Center Heliport, PA (Lat. 42°06′43″ N, long. 80°04′51″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Erie International Airport/Tom Ridge Field, and within 4.4 miles each side of the 054° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 14 miles northeast of the airport and within a 6-mile radius of St. Vincent Health Center Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 16, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10939 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31194; Amdt. No. 3800] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 23, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001;

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, or

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125), telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2018. John S. Duncan, Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

    By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

    * * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC Date Subject 21-Jun-18 IA Newton Newton Muni-Earl Johnson Field 7/1795 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 MO New Madrid County Memorial 8/0236 4/30/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1. 21-Jun-18 IA Chariton Chariton Muni 8/0759 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-A. 21-Jun-18 IN Anderson Anderson Muni-Darlington Field 8/0820 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig-A. 21-Jun-18 MD Westminster Carroll County Rgnl/Jack B Poage Field 8/1811 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 NY Binghamton Greater Binghamton/Edwin A Link Field 8/1814 4/23/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt 4. 21-Jun-18 GA Atlanta Atlanta Rgnl Falcon Field 8/1817 4/23/18 NDB RWY 31, Amdt 3B. 21-Jun-18 WV Lewisburg Greenbrier Valley 8/1887 4/23/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 11. 21-Jun-18 OH Youngstown Youngstown Elser Metro 8/1888 4/30/18 VOR-C, Amdt 2A. 21-Jun-18 OH Youngstown Youngstown Elser Metro 8/1889 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Orig-B. 21-Jun-18 OH Youngstown Youngstown Elser Metro 8/1890 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B. 21-Jun-18 NC Elizabeth City Elizabeth City CG Air Station/Rgnl 8/3025 4/23/18 VOR/DME RWY 19, Amdt 10F. 21-Jun-18 IL Moline Quad City Intl 8/3317 4/23/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 31C. 21-Jun-18 MN Caledonia Houston County 8/3385 4/30/18 VOR/DME OR GPS-A, Amdt 3. 21-Jun-18 PA Doylestown Doylestown 8/3389 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 PA Doylestown Doylestown 8/3390 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-A. 21-Jun-18. PA Doylestown Doylestown 8/3391 4/30/18 VOR/DME RWY 23, Amdt 8A. 21-Jun-18 AL Montgomery Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field) 8/3990 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1B. 21-Jun-18 NE Red Cloud Red Cloud Muni 8/4513 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-A. 21-Jun-18 NC Wadesboro Anson County—Jeff Cloud Field 8/4536 4/23/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2. 21-Jun-18 RI Newport Newport State 8/4770 4/23/18 LOC RWY 22, Amdt 7D. 21-Jun-18 MI Boyne Falls Boyne Mountain 8/5324 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig. 21-Jun-18 MI Boyne Falls Boyne Mountain 8/5325 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig. 21-Jun-18 AZ Mesa Falcon Fld 8/5418 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 8/5913 4/30/18 RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 24L, Amdt 5A. 21-Jun-18 CA Los Angeles Los Angeles Intl 8/5914 4/30/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 24L, Amdt 27B. 21-Jun-18 IL Springfield Abraham Lincoln Capital 8/5917 4/30/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 25G. 21-Jun-18 PA Pottstown Pottstown Muni 8/6273 4/23/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A. 21-Jun-18 AL Mobile Mobile Rgnl 8/6752 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 AL Mobile Mobile Rgnl 8/6753 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 NJ Princeton/Rocky Hill Princeton 8/7011 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-A. 21-Jun-18 NC Elizabeth City Elizabeth City CG Air Station/Rgnl 8/7274 4/23/18 VOR/DME RWY 28, Amdt 1B. 21-Jun-18 LA New Orleans Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl 8/7386 4/23/18 ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 18. 21-Jun-18 OH Urbana Grimes Field 8/7454 4/23/18 VOR-A, Amdt 5C. 21-Jun-18 OH Urbana Grimes Field 8/7455 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1. 21-Jun-18 OH Urbana Grimes Field 8/7456 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1. 21-Jun-18 MI Linden Prices 8/8225 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1. 21-Jun-18 MI Linden Prices 8/8227 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1. 21-Jun-18 MI Linden Prices 8/8228 4/23/18 VOR-A, Orig-A. 21-Jun-18 TX Amarillo Rick Husband Amarillo Intl 8/8443 4/23/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1. 21-Jun-18 TN Columbia/Mount Pleasant Maury County 8/9094 4/23/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3. 21-Jun-18 MA Westfield/Springfield Westfield-Barnes Rgnl 8/9142 4/23/18 Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4A. 21-Jun-18 NC Washington Washington-Warren 8/9809 4/23/18 VOR/DME RWY 5, Amdt 3A. 21-Jun-18 NE Scottsbluff Western Nebraska Rgnl/William B Heilig Field 8/9815 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1A. 21-Jun-18 AL Guntersville Guntersville Muni—Joe Starnes Field 8/9817 4/23/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10817 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31193; Amdt. No. 3799] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 23, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2018. John S. Duncan, Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 21 June 2018 Brookhaven, MS, Brookhaven-Lincoln County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, ILS RWY 18 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 18 (SA CAT II), Amdt 5A Myrtle Beach, SC, Myrtle Beach Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 4B Minocqua-Woodruff, WI, Lakeland/Noble F Lee Memorial Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B Minocqua-Woodruff, WI, Lakeland/Noble F Lee Memorial Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-B New Holstein, WI, New Holstein Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-B Effective 19 July 2018 Nikolai, AK, Nikolai, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1 Nikolai, AK, Nikolai, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 Nikolai, AK, Nikolai, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Fayette, AL, Richard Arthur Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1C Fayette, AL, Richard Arthur Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1C Fayetteville, AR, Drake Field, RADAR 1, Orig-A, CANCELED Siloam Springs, AR, Smith Field, VOR-A, Amdt 9, CANCELED Apple Valley, CA, Apple Valley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Davis/Woodland/Winters, CA, Yolo County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Eureka, CA, Murray Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-A Eureka, CA, Murray Field, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig-A Eureka, CA, Murray Field, VOR-A, Amdt 7B Susanville, CA, Susanville Muni, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 2 Tulare, CA, Mefford Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 3B Denver, CO, Denver Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, ILS RWY 35L SA CAT I, ILS RWY 35L CAT II, ILS RWY 35L CAT III, Amdt 5B Rangely, CO, Rangely, ELIZZ ONE, Graphic DP Rangely, CO, Rangely, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig Danielson, CT, Danielson, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Williston, FL, Williston Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Douglas, GA, Douglas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 2 Douglas, GA, Douglas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 2 Jesup, GA, Jesup-Wayne County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-A Macon, GA, Macon Downtown, VOR-A, Amdt 6A Lihue, HI, Lihue, DIANE ONE, GRAPHIC DP, CANCELED Clarinda, IA, Schenck Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1 Clarinda, IA, Schenck Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1 Blackfoot, ID, McCarley Fld, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Chicago/Aurora, IL, Aurora Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1B Chicago/Aurora, IL, Aurora Muni, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 3A Chicago, IL, Chicago Midway Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 12 Jacksonville, IL, Jacksonville Muni, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 1, CANCELED Lawrenceville, IL, Lawrenceville-Vincennes Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Plymouth, MA, Plymouth Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, ILS RWY 10 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 10 (CAT II), ILS RWY 10 (CAT III), Amdt 21C Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10, Amdt 3C Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28, Amdt 2C Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10, Amdt 2C Eastport, ME, Eastport Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Eastport, ME, Eastport Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1 Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1 Kalamazoo, MI, Kalamazoo/Battle Creek Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1 Plymouth, MI, Canton-Plymouth-Mettetal, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig-A Plymouth, MI, Canton-Plymouth-Mettetal, VOR-A, Amdt 12A, CANCELED West Branch, MI, West Branch Community, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 West Branch, MI, West Branch Community, VOR RWY 27, Orig-F, CANCELED Manteo, NC, Dare County Rgnl, NDB RWY 5, Amdt 5, CANCELED Manteo, NC, Dare County Rgnl, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 6A, CANCELED Gordon, NE, Gordon Muni, NDB RWY 22, Amdt 4C Moriarty, NM, Moriarty Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Orig-A Moriarty, NM, Moriarty Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Orig-A Moriarty, NM, Moriarty Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A Hudson, NY, Columbia County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni Arpt,Tarantine Fld, VOR-A, Amdt 6, CANCELED West Union, OH, Alexander Salamon, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 4A, CANCELED Okmulgee, OK, Okmulgee Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig Portland, OR, Portland-Troutdale, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7 Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS V RWY 9R (CONVERGING), Amdt 6 Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, ILS V RWY 17 (CONVERGING), Amdt 7 Reading, PA, Reading Rgnl/Carl A Spaatz Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5A Clemson, SC, Oconee County Rgnl, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 1A, CANCELED Brookings, SD, Brookings Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 12, Orig-C Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, ILS RWY 17L SA CAT I, ILS RWY 17L CAT II, ILS RWY 17L CAT III, Amdt 3A Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 5A Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX, Jack Brooks Rgnl, LOC BC RWY 30, Amdt 20, CANCELED Bowie, TX, Bowie Muni, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 4A, CANCELED Bowie, TX, Bowie Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1 Bowie, TX, Bowie Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2 Carrizo Springs, TX, Dimmit County, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 3C, CANCELED Lamesa, TX, Lamesa Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Amdt 1 Lamesa, TX, Lamesa Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 2 Lubbock, TX, Lubbock Preston Smith Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 3 Lubbock, TX, Lubbock Preston Smith Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 3 Mineola, TX, Mineola Wisener Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-B Mineola, TX, Mineola Wisener Field, VOR-A, Amdt 6C Huntington, UT, Huntington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2B Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 2, Amdt 2B Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, Amdt 9B Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 1B Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2A Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 2, Amdt 1C Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 16, Amdt 1D Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 20, Amdt 2C Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 34, Amdt 1D Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 2, Orig-B Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 16, Orig-C Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 20, Orig-B Richmond, VA, Richmond Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 34, Orig-C Highgate, VT, Franklin County State, VOR RWY 19, Amdt 5B Burlington, WI, Burlington Muni, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 8B, CANCELED Milwaukee, WI, Lawrence J Timmerman, LOC RWY 15L, Amdt 6D

    Rescinded: On April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15052), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31186, Amdt No. 3793, to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following entry for Kailua/Kona, HI, effective April 26, 2018, is hereby rescinded in its entirety:

    Kailua/Kona, HI, Ellison Onizuka Kona Intl at Keahole, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17, Orig-B
    [FR Doc. 2018-10818 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0067] Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Interim statement of enforcement priorities.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or the Department) is issuing a statement of enforcement priorities to apprise the public of its intended enforcement focus with respect to transportation of service animals in the cabin of aircraft. The Department regulates the transportation of service animals under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and its implementing regulation. The Department seeks comment on this interim statement, and intends to issue a final statement after the close of the comment period.

    DATES:

    The interim statement of enforcement proprieties is applicable May 23, 2018. Comments should be filed by June 7, 2018. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2018-0067 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2018-0067 at the beginning of your comment. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Gorman, Senior Trial Attorney, or Blane A. Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected] or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) prohibits discrimination in airline service on the basis of disability. 49 U.S.C. 41705. DOT's rule implementing the ACAA generally requires that airlines permit an individual with a disability to travel with his or her service animal in the cabin at no additional charge. 14 CFR 382.31(a). Service animals play a vital role in the lives of many individuals with disabilities. For example, service animals serve as guides for persons with visual impairments, notify persons who are deaf or hard of hearing of public announcements and/or possible hazards, warn persons with post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental or emotional disabilities at the onset of an emotional crisis, and retrieve items for passengers with mobility impairments. At the same time, the Department recognizes that airlines have a responsibility to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all of its passengers and employees. In enforcing the requirements of Federal law, the Department is committed to ensuring that our air transportation system is safe and accessible for everyone.

    DOT requires airlines to allow a wide variety of service animals in the cabin of aircraft flying to, from, and within the United States. Under the ACAA, the Department considers a service animal to be any animal that is individually trained to assist a person with a disability, or an animal that is necessary for the emotional well-being of a passenger. 14 CFR 382.117(e) and Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation, 73 FR 27614, 27658 (May 13, 2008). However, airlines are never required to accept snakes, reptiles, ferrets, rodents, sugar gliders, and spiders. Airlines may also exclude animals that are too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, cause a significant disruption of cabin service, or are prohibited from entering a foreign country. 14 CFR 382.117(f). In addition, airlines may deny transport to a service animal that is not well-behaved, suggesting a lack of proper training. 14 CFR 382.117(i) and Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation, 73 FR 27614, 27659 (May 13, 2008). Foreign air carriers are required to only transport dogs. 14 CFR 382.117(f).

    Under DOT rules, airlines determine whether an animal is a service animal or pet by the credible verbal assurance of an individual with a disability using the animal, or by looking for physical indicators such as the presence of a harness or tags. 14 CFR 382.117(d). If the animal is a psychiatric service animal (PSA) or an emotional support animal (ESA), airlines may also require documentation by a licensed mental health professional stating that the passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) and that the passenger needs the animal for air travel or activity at the passenger's destination. 14 CFR 382.117(e). Airlines may also require 48 hours' advance notice and check-in one hour before the check-in time for the general public as a condition for travel with an ESA or PSA. 14 CFR 382.27(c)(8). Airlines are prohibited from imposing such a requirement for travel with other types of service animals, except for travel with a service animal on a flight segment scheduled to take 8 hours or more. 14 CFR 382.27(a); 382.27(c)(9).

    In 2016, the Department attempted to change its service animal requirements through a negotiated rulemaking because of widespread dissatisfaction with the current rule. Some disability rights advocates asserted that the Department's service animal requirements discriminate against passengers with mental and emotional disabilities by allowing airlines to require them to give advance notice and documentation that other individuals with disabilities are not required to give. There was also concern that a growing number of passengers are presenting untrained animals that are essentially just pets, and demanding the right to bring them onboard as service animals. Airlines reported to the Department a proliferation of websites offering certificates of psychological need for essentially any applicant who pays a small fee. The use of unusual species such as turkeys and pigs as service animals also caused unease not only with airlines but also with advocates. Some advocates worried that the use of unusual service animals would create distrust by flight crew and other passengers that could affect their ability to bring legitimate service animals onboard. Unfortunately, while the negotiated rulemaking process was highly informative and productive, the Department's efforts to find full consensus on these issues was not successful.

    Since that time, the need for the Department to address these issues has only grown. Airlines have become increasingly concerned that untrained service animals pose a risk to the health and safety of its crewmembers and passengers. Carriers have reported increased incidents of misbehavior including urination, defecation, and biting. A few have established policies that they deem appropriate given their belief that there has been a significant increase in passengers bringing animals onboard that have not been properly trained as service animals. For example, one airline declared its intention to require, effective March 1, 2018, that all passengers traveling with service animals provide immunization records and/or veterinary health forms for their animal signed by a veterinarian at least 48 hours before the flight's scheduled departure time.1 In addition, this airline specified that PSA and ESA users must also submit documentation that their animal has been trained to behave in a public setting as a condition for travel, and required that all passengers with service animals must check-in at the airport counter. The airline further states that it will evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether it will accept any animal that is not a dog or a cat for travel. Another airline has indicated that, effective March 1, 2018, it will require passengers who use PSAs or ESAs to provide, no later than 48 hours prior to travel, two separate forms in addition to the medical form already permitted under section 382.117(e). First, under the airline policy, the passenger must attest that he or she is not aware of any reason that the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, and that the passenger accepts full legal responsibility for any misbehavior by the animal. Second, the passenger must provide a form, signed by a licensed veterinarian, providing information about the medical history of the animal.2 Other airlines have informally expressed to the Department an interest in similarly amending their service animal policies.

    1 On February 22, 2018, that airline changed its policy so it no longer required all service animal users to provide immunization records/and or veterinary health forms.

    2 Among other data, the veterinarian form must include the type/breed/weight of the animal, the date of the animal's last rabies vaccine, and a statement that at the time of the animal's last physical examination, the animal appeared to be free of infectious or contagious diseases that would endanger other animals or public health. The veterinarian must also relay information from the animal's owner regarding whether the animal has injured or attacked any person.

    An earlier version of this airline's policy would have required the veterinarian to directly attest that the animal's behavior would not pose a direct threat onboard the aircraft. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has raised concerns with the Department about airlines' service animal forms, to the extent that they would require veterinarians to predict or certify that an animal will behave appropriately onboard an aircraft. The AVMA noted that veterinarians generally rely on reports from the animal's owner and on their direct observations of the animal during a physical examination. The AVMA explained to the Department, however, that veterinarians cannot guarantee the behavior of an animal, particularly in a new environment like an aircraft. The AVMA emphasized to the Department that expanding the scope of the veterinary form beyond the health status of the animal and behavioral information of the animal based on owner reports or the veterinarian's observations could lead to refusals by veterinarians to fill out these forms, which would result in more service animals being denied air transportation.

    Many disability advocates oppose these new policies for various reasons. They broadly contend that the Department should not tolerate these restrictions because they impose burdens that go beyond what the Department has indicated airlines may impose on passengers with disabilities. More specifically, they contend that the inconvenience and expense of providing veterinary forms outweigh their limited value. They note that whether an animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others should be assessed on an individualized, real-time basis, rather than through a general requirement that applies to all service animals. Advocates have also pointed out to the Department that a 48 hours' advance notice requirement prevents passengers from traveling in the event of an emergency. In addition, advocates assert that requiring passengers to check-in at the ticket counter is burdensome, particularly in an era where many passengers skip the ticket counter and proceed directly to the gate because they have checked in online. PSA users further contend that it is discriminatory to apply greater restrictions to PSAs than are applied to other service animals. More generally, advocates have expressed a concern that passengers with disabilities may be subject to a shifting patchwork of carrier policies.

    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Today, the Department issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in response to concerns expressed by the stakeholders about the need for a change in the Department's service animal requirements. The ANPRM solicits comments on ways to ensure that individuals with disabilities can continue using their service animals while deterring the fraudulent use of other animals not qualified as service animals and ensuring that animals that are not trained to behave properly in the public are not accepted for transport. Because the rulemaking process can be lengthy, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office), within the Office of the General Counsel, is issuing this statement to apprise the public of its intended enforcement focus with respect to transportation of service animals in the cabin until the service animal requirements are revised.

    Interim Statement of Enforcement Office Priorities

    The Enforcement Office has the authority to pursue or not to pursue enforcement action against airlines for not complying with the ACAA and the Department's implementing regulation. Given that the service animal issue is currently the subject of an open rulemaking, the Enforcement Office will focus its enforcement on clear violations of the current rule that have the potential to adversely impact the largest number of persons.3

    3 To the extent that this interim statement of enforcement priorities conflicts with the Enforcement Office's 2009 Frequently Asked Questions guidance document (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/frequently-asked-questions-may-13-2009), this more recent document will control.

    Service Animals—Species and Number

    The Enforcement Office intends to exercise its enforcement discretion by focusing its resources on ensuring that U.S. carriers continue to accept the most commonly used service animals (i.e., dogs, cats, and miniature horses) for travel. While the Enforcement Office will focus on ensuring the transport of commonly used service animals such as dogs, cats and miniature horses by U.S. carriers, it may take enforcement action against U.S. carriers for failing to transport other service animals on a case-by-case basis. Airlines are expected to continue to comply with the existing service animal requirement which allows U.S. airlines to deny transport only to certain unusual service animals such as snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents and spiders. The Enforcement Office believes that the public interest will be better served by this exercise of its enforcement discretion because dogs, cats, and miniature horses are the most commonly used service animals.

    The Department's service animal regulation does not indicate whether airlines must allow passengers to travel with more than one service animal. In the past, the Enforcement Office has informed airlines that they will not be subject to enforcement action if they limit passengers to transporting three service animals. The Enforcement Office continues to recognize that a passenger may require more than one task trained service animal. Multiple task trained service animals may be needed to the extent that they are trained to perform different tasks, or in cases where an individual trained service animal must rest and cannot perform tasks for the passenger for extended periods. On the other hand, it is less clear that passengers require more than one ESA for travel or at the passenger's destination. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion, the Enforcement Office does not intend to take action if airlines limit passengers to transporting one ESA. Additionally, the Enforcement Office does not intend to take action if airlines limit passengers to transporting a total of three service animals.

    Advance Notice

    The Enforcement Office plans to use its resources to ensure that airlines are not improperly requiring passengers with service animals to provide advance notice prior to travel. Under existing DOT rules, carriers generally may not require advance notice for passengers with disabilities, unless the rule specifically permits advance notice. 14 CFR 382.27(a). Carriers may require advance notice for passengers traveling with PSAs or ESAs, or for any service animal where the flight segment is scheduled to take 8 hours or more, but only with regard to the animal's need to relieve itself during the flight. 14 CFR 382.27(c). Thus, under existing rules, carriers may not otherwise require advance notice for passengers traveling with service animals (e.g., seeing eye dogs) other than ESAs or PSAs unless the flight segment is 8 hours or more. Requiring advance notice for service animals outside of these specific circumstances violates the Department's regulation and may significantly harm passengers with disabilities as it prevents them from making last minute travel plans that may be necessary for work or family emergencies.

    Proof That an Animal is a Service Animal

    The Department's service animal regulation requires airlines to accept the following as proof of a service animal's status: Identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal. 14 CFR 382.117(d). Airlines have pointed out to the Department that accepting identification cards, harnesses, or tags as the sole evidence that an animal is a service animal is problematic because service animal paraphernalia are sold online and may be obtained by unscrupulous individuals so their pets can fly in the aircraft cabin as service animals. However, the Department's disability regulation makes clear that these protections are for individuals with disabilities. See 14 CFR 382.1 and 382.3. When deciding to accept an animal as a service animal, airlines must determine both that the passenger is an individual with a disability and that the animal is a service animal. See 73 FR 27614, 27658. If a passenger's status as an individual with a disability is unclear (for example, if the disability is not clearly visible), then the airline personnel may ask questions about the passenger's need for a service animal. For example, airlines may ask “how does your animal assist you with your disability?” See 73 FR 27614, 27660. A credible response to this question would establish both that the passenger is an individual with a disability and that the animal is a service animal. While airlines are required to accept items such as vests and harnesses as evidence of a service animal's status, it would be reasonable for airlines to also request the passenger's credible verbal assurance to ensure the passenger is an individual with a disability who has a need for that service animal.

    Check-In Requirements

    Airlines generally allow passengers to check-in electronically before arriving at the airport. DOT prohibits airlines from denying an individual with a disability the benefit of any air transportation or related services that are available to other persons. 14 CFR 382.11. Among the many benefits of electronic check-in is the ability to skip the ticket counter and proceed directly to the gate. One of the reasons that the Department requires airlines to make its websites accessible is to enable individuals with disabilities to check-in electronically like other travelers. See 14 CFR 382.43. For these reasons, and considering the prohibition against discrimination in the ACAA, the Enforcement Office intends to act should an airline require that a passenger with a service animal check-in at the ticket counter, thereby denying those passengers the same benefits that are available to other passengers.

    Documentation

    As noted above, carriers may refuse transportation to any service animal that displays behavior evidencing a lack of training in a public space. For example, an untrained animal may bark or growl at other persons on the aircraft, bite or jump on people, or urinate or defecate in the cabin. The Department's disability rule does not clearly indicate how carriers determine whether a service animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The provision in the current regulation that allows airlines to deny boarding to an animal that poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others will be further clarified through the rulemaking process. As described previously, certain carriers have indicated that they need veterinary forms or behavioral attestations to determine whether a service animal, particularly a PSA and/or an ESA poses a direct threat. At the same time, we understand the disability advocates' view that these policies violate the Department's disability regulation because they impose new requirements on passengers with disabilities.

    The Enforcement Office does not intend to use its limited resources to pursue enforcement action against airlines for requiring proof of a service animal's vaccination, training, or behavior so long as the documentation is not required for passengers seeking to travel with a service animal that is not an ESA or PSA. Under section 382.27, carriers may not require advance notice to obtain services or accommodations, except under circumstances specifically permitted by rule. As noted above, however, under DOT's rule, airlines are permitted to ask for up to 48 hours' advance notice for passengers using PSAs and ESAs. 14 CFR 382.27(c)(8). The Department permits airlines to require 48 hours' advance notice of a passenger wishing to travel with an ESA or PSA in order to provide the carrier the necessary time to assess the passenger's documentation.4 As such, the Enforcement Office does not intend to use its limited resources to pursue enforcement action against airlines for requiring proof of a service animal's vaccination, training, or behavior for passengers seeking to travel with an ESA or PSA. At present, the Enforcement Office is not aware of any airline requesting information from ESA or PSA users that would make travel with those animals unduly burdensome or effectively impossible (e.g., requiring veterinarians to directly guarantee or certify that an animal will behave appropriately onboard an aircraft). The Enforcement Office will continue to monitor the types of information sought by ESA and PSA users, however.

    4 See 73 FR 27614, 27636 (May 13, 2008).

    Containing Emotional Support Animals in the Cabin

    Part 382 does not clearly specify whether or how airlines may restrict the movement of service animals in the cabin. The FAA determined as a matter of aircraft safety that passengers may carry service animals in their lap during all stages of flight, so long as the animal does not weigh more than a lap child (i.e., a child that has not reached his or her second birthday).5 The Enforcement Office then interpreted section 382.117 as prohibiting an airline from requiring service animals to be harnessed in the cabin, and requiring airlines to transport service animals in the cabin free of restraining devices while accompanying users at their seats in accordance with applicable safety requirements since there appeared to be no safety reason to do so.6

    5 FAA Order 8400.10, FSAT 04-01A (2004) at http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/Bulletins/Information%20Bulletins/Air%20Transportation%20Info%20Bulletins%20(FSAT)/FSAT0401A.htm.

    6 See letter dated March 22, 2010 from the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings stating that the office “has long interpreted this provision to mean that, in general, service animals should be transported in the cabin free of restraining devices while accompanying users at their seats in accordance with applicable safety requirements, and prohibits carriers from otherwise mandating conditions or restrictions not stated in section 382.117.” DOT-OST-2008-0272-0091 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2008-0272-0091.

    However, because the regulatory text is not explicitly clear on this topic and the FAA order does not address the behavior of service animals, the Enforcement Office now intends to exercise its enforcement discretion with respect to carriers that restrict the movement of ESAs in the cabin. We recognize the possibility that ESAs may pose greater in-cabin safety risks because they may not have undergone the same level of training as other service animals (including PSAs). Accordingly, at this time, the Enforcement Office will not take action against carriers that impose reasonable restrictions on the movement of ESAs in the cabin so long as the reason for the restriction is concern for the safety of other passengers and crew. Such restrictions may include requiring, where appropriate for the animal's size, that the animal be placed in a pet carrier, the animal stay on the floor at the passenger's feet, or requiring the animal to be on a leash or tether.

    Request for Comments

    This interim statement of enforcement priorities reflects the Department's current view of where to focus its limited resources with respect to service animal issues, given airlines recently announced service animal policies. In appropriate cases, the Enforcement Office may take enforcement action against carriers for violations that are not described in this interim statement. The Department solicits comment on the effects and implications of adopting these enforcement priorities. The comment period will remain open for 15 days after publication in the Federal Register. Late-received comments will be considered to the extent practicable. After the close of the comment period, the Department will issue a final statement of enforcement priorities. Comments relating to amending the Department's disability regulation should be directed to the ANPRM docket: DOT-OST-2018-0067.

    Issued this 9th day of May, 2018, in Washington, DC. Blane A. Workie, Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10814 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. RM18-7-000; Order No. 846] Withdrawal of Pleadings AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission adopts a more accurate title of “Withdrawal of pleadings (Rule 216),” for Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission also clarifies the text of the Rule.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vince Mareino, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6167, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Order No. 846 Final Rule (Issued May 17, 2018)

    1. In this Final Rule, as proposed in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,1 the Commission revises the title and text of Rule 216 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.216. The Commission adopts the more accurate title of “Withdrawal of pleadings (Rule 216).” The Commission also clarifies the text of the Rule.

    1Withdrawal of Pleadings, 83 FR 8019 (February 23, 2018), 162 FERC ¶ 61,111 (2018) (NOPR).

    I. Discussion

    2. The Commission shall implement two changes to Rule 216. First, the preexisting title may confuse some readers by implying that Rule 216 governs the withdrawal of tariff or rate filings, which are instead governed by separate regulations.2 Thus, the Commission revises the title from “Withdrawal of pleadings and tariff or rate filings (Rule 216)” to “Withdrawal of pleadings (Rule 216).”

    2E.g., 18 CFR 35.17, 154.205, 284.123, 341.13 (2017).

    3. Second, the Commission revises the first sentence of Rule 216(a) to read, “Any person may seek to withdraw its pleading by filing a notice of withdrawal.” This change clarifies that it is the person who has submitted a pleading that may withdraw that pleading. The Commission also makes a conforming change, to refer to “person” rather than “party,” in Rule 216(c).

    4. The Commission received one comment, from A. Hewitt Rose III, an attorney who practices before the Commission. Mr. Rose generally supports the proposed rule but objects to the use of the word “its” in the phrase, “Any person may seek to withdraw its pleading by filing a notice of withdrawal.” Mr. Rose argues that “it” is not necessarily the correct pronoun for the word “person,” which refers not only to legal entities but also to natural persons. Mr. Rose notes, however, that the best replacement pronoun, “their,” is not universally recognized as the correct pronoun for a singular subject. Therefore, Mr. Rose proposes adjusting the sentence so that “it” refers to the pleading, not the person: “Any person that filed a pleading may seek to withdraw it by filing a notice of withdrawal.” We accept Mr. Rose's proposal, which serves the Commission's goal of developing a clear and concise set of Rules of Practice and Procedure, and we revise Rule 216(a) accordingly.

    II. Regulatory Requirements A. Information Collection Statement

    5. Review by the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, is not required since this Final Rule does not contain new or modified information collection or recordkeeping requirements.

    B. Environmental Analysis

    6. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.3 Section 380.4(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations exempts certain actions from the requirement that an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.4 Included is an exemption for procedural actions. As this Final Rule falls within that exemption, issuance of the Final Rule does not represent a major federal action having a significant adverse effect on the human environment under the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, and, thus, does not require an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement.

    3Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ¶ 61,284).

    4 18 CFR 380.4(a)(1) (2017).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    7. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 5 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This Final Rule concerns clarifications to agency procedure. The Commission certifies that the proposed clarifications will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities in Commission proceedings and, therefore, an analysis under the RFA is not required.

    5 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).

    D. Document Availability

    8. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    9. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

    10. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected].

    E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    11. These regulations are effective June 22, 2018. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 385

    Electric power rates, Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: May 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission hereby amends part 385, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 385—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-557; 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825v, 2601-2645; 28 U.S.C. 2461; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352, 16441, 16451-16463; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (1988); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (1990); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (2015).

    2. In § 385.216, revise the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 385.216 Withdrawal of pleadings (Rule 216).

    (a) Filing. Any person that filed a pleading may seek to withdraw it by filing a notice of withdrawal. The procedures provided in this section do not apply to withdrawals of tariff or rate filings, which may be withdrawn only as provided in the regulations under this chapter.

    (c) Conditional withdrawal. In order to prevent prejudice to other participants, a decisional authority may, on motion or otherwise, condition the withdrawal of any pleading upon a requirement that the withdrawing person leave material in the record or otherwise make material available to other participants.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11045 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that LCAC 1 through 91 and 100 through 173 are vessels of the Navy which, due to their special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with their special functions as naval ships. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 23, 2018 and is applicable beginning April 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that LCAC 1 Through 91 and 100 through 173 are vessels of the Navy which, due to their special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with their special functions as naval ships: Annex I paragraph 2 (a)(i), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light at a height not less than 12 meters above the hull; Rule 21(a), pertaining to the location of the masthead lights over the fore and aft centerline of the ship; Annex I paragraph 2(f)(i) pertaining to placement of the masthead light above or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 3(b), pertaining to the locations of the sidelights; Rule 27(a) and Annex I, paragraph 2(i)(i), pertaining to the vertical placement of the not-under-command lights; and Annex I, paragraph 9(b)(i), pertaining to the visibility of the all-round lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

    Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table One by removing the two entries for LCAC (class) and adding three entries in their place; b. In Table Two by removing the two entries for LCAC (class) and adding three entries in their place; c. By revising paragraph 9 under the heading “Table Four”; and d. In paragraph 16 table, under the heading “Table Four”, by adding an entry for LCAC 100 through 173 in alphabetical order.
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table One Vessel Number Distance in meters of forward masthead light below minimum required height. § 2(a)(i) Annex I *         *         *         *         *         *         * LCAC (class) LCAC 1 through LCAC 91 6.51 LCAC (class) LCAC 1 through LCAC 91 7.84 (Temp.). LCAC (class) LCAC 100 through LCAC 173 7.7. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Table Two Vessel Number Masthead
  • lights,
  • distance to stbd of keel in meters; Rule 21(a)
  • Forward
  • anchor
  • light,
  • distance
  • below
  • flight dk
  • in meters;
  • § 2(K)
  • Annex I
  • Forward
  • anchor
  • light, number
  • of; Rule
  • 30(a)(i)
  • AFT anchor
  • light,
  • distance
  • below
  • flight dk
  • in meters;
  • Rule 21(e),
  • Rule
  • 30(a)(ii)
  • AFT anchor
  • lights
  • number of;
  • Rule
  • 30(a)(ii)
  • Side
  • lights,
  • distance
  • below
  • flight
  • dk in meters;
  • § 2(g)
  • , Annex I
  • Side
  • lights,
  • distance
  • forward of
  • masthead
  • light in
  • meters;
  • § 3(b),
  • Annex I
  • Side
  • lights,
  • distance
  • inboard of
  • ship's
  • sides in
  • meters;
  • § 3(b),
  • Annex I
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * LCAC Class LCAC 1 through LCAC 91 5.26 (Perm.) 1.5 1.5 LCAC Class LCAC 1 through LCAC 91 3.98 (Temp.) 1.5 1.5 LCAC Class LCAC 100 through 173 5.2 1.8 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    9. On LCAC 1 through 91 amphibious vessels, full compliance with Rules 21(a), 21(b) and Annex I, section 2(a)(i), 72 COLREGS, cannot be obtained. Tables One and Two of section 706.2 provide the dimensions of closest possible compliance of LCAC 1 through 91 amphibious vessels with the aforementioned rules. The following paragraph details the specific dimensions of closest possible compliance and the basis for certification by the Secretary of the Navy that full compliance with the aforementioned rules is not obtainable.

    On LCAC 1 through 91 amphibious vessels, there are permanent and temporary masts. The permanent masthead light is located 5.26 meters athwartship to port of centerline 5.49 meters above the hull. The temporary masthead light is located 3.98 meters athwartship to starboard of centerline, 4.16 meters in height above the hull. The temporary masthead light is displayed in lieu of the permanent masthead light only when LCAC 1 through 91 amphibious vessels are operating with amphibious assault vessels. When operating in this mode, the sidelights are displayed at a height greater than three-quarters of the height of the temporary masthead light. The sidelights are located on top of the port and starboard deckhouses to permit the required unobstructed arcs of visibility and are 3.28 meters above the hull, resulting in a vertical separation between those lights and the temporary masthead light of 0.78 meters. Because of the minimal vertical separation between the sidelights and the temporary masthead light and the luminous intensity of the temporary light, the sidelights on these vessels may not be distinguishable by the naked eye at the 2-mil range required by Rule 22(b).

    The arc of visibility of the temporary masthead light required by rule 21(a) may be obstructed at the following angles relative to the LCAC(1 through 91)'s heading, from 37.00 degrees thru 90.00 degrees up to a distance of 112.5 meters from the craft and from 267.75 degrees thru 277.25 degrees.

    On LCAC 100 through 173 amphibious vessels, full compliance with Annex I, Paragraphs 2(i)(i) and 9(b)(i), 72 COLREGS, cannot be obtained. The upper and lower Not Under Command lights, located above the command module, are spaced 1.0 meters (3.3 feet) apart with the lower light at a height of 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) above the hull. The lower Not Under Command Light has angles of obstruction from 83.0 to 111.0 degrees, 137.0 to 145.5 degrees, 158.7 to 177.3 degrees, 171.7 to 184.1 degrees, 197.9 to 209.5 degrees, 230.5 to 240.5 degrees, and 244.9 to 256.5 degrees.

    16. * * *

    Vessel Number Obstruction angle relative ship's heading *         *         *         *         *         *         * LCAC (class) LCAC 100 through LCAC 173 83 thru 84 [degrees]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: April 9, 2018. A.S. Janin, Captain, USN, JAGC, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). Dated: April 9, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11064 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0270] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during an air show on May 23, 2018. This action will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0270 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On February 21, 2018, the Town of Ocean City, MD notified the Coast Guard that from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on May 23, 2018, it will be conducting the Canadian Snowbirds Air Show Featurette above the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD. In response, on April 16, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD” (83 FR 16265). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 16, 2018, we received no comments.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with this May 23, 2018 air show will be a safety concern for anyone operating within certain waters of the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 16, 2018. Therefore, there are no substantive changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 23, 2018. The safety zone will cover all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: commencing at a point near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′33.3″ N, longitude 075°04′37.7″ W, thence eastward to latitude 38°20′24.9″ N, longitude 075°04′01.5″ W, thence southward to latitude 38°19′18.4″ N, longitude 075°04′26.9″ W, thence westward to latitude 38°19′27.0″ N, longitude 075°05′03.0″ W, thence northward to point of origin, located adjacent to Ocean City, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 2 p.m. air show. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area for less than 3 hours during a Wednesday before Memorial Day when vessel traffic in the North Atlantic Ocean is normally low. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16 to provide information about the safety zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than three hours that would prohibit vessel movement within a portion of the North Atlantic Ocean. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. Add §  165.T05-0270 to read as follows:
    §  165.T05-0270 Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, within an area bounded by the following coordinates: Commencing at a point near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′33.3″ N, longitude 075°04′37.7″ W, thence eastward to latitude 38°20′24.9″ N, longitude 075°04′01.5″ W, thence southward to latitude 38°19′18.4″ N, longitude 075°04′26.9″ W, thence westward to latitude 38°19′27.0″ N, longitude 075°05′03.0″ W, thence northward to point of origin, located adjacent to Ocean City, MD. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:

    (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcement of the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C apply to the safety zone created by this section.

    (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.

    (2) Entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. All vessels underway within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone.

    (3) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone are to obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted to enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.

    (4) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 23, 2018.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Joseph B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11072 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 242 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2015-0159; FXFR13350700640-167-FF07J00000; FBMS#4500096963] RIN 1018-BB22 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska—Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands AGENCY:

    Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. District Court for Alaska in its October 17, 2011, order in Peratrovich et al. v. United States and the State of Alaska, 3:92-cv-0734-HRH (D. Alaska), enjoined the United States “to promptly initiate regulatory proceedings for the purpose of implementing the subsistence provisions in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) with respect to submerged public lands within Tongass National Forest” and directed entry of judgment. To comply with the order, the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) initiated a regulatory proceeding to identify those submerged lands within the Tongass National Forest that did not pass to the State of Alaska at statehood and, therefore, remain Federal public lands subject to the subsistence provisions of ANILCA. Following the Court's decision, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA-Forest Service (USDA-FS) started a review of hundreds of potential pre-statehood (January 3, 1959) withdrawals in the marine waters of the Tongass National Forest. In April and October of 2015, BLM submitted initial lists of submerged public lands to the Board. This rule adds those submerged parcels to the subsistence regulations to ensure compliance with the Court order. Additional listings will be published as BLM and the USDA-FS continue their review of pre-statehood withdrawals.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Board meeting transcripts are available for review at the Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Mail Stop 121, Anchorage, AK 99503, or on the Office of Subsistence Management website (https://www.doi.gov/subsistence).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or [email protected] For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Thomas Whitford, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region; (907) 743-9461 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. This program provides a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out this program in the Federal Register on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 27114), and published final regulations in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). The Program has subsequently amended these regulations a number of times. Because this program is a joint effort between Interior and Agriculture, these regulations are located in two titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and Title 50, “Wildlife and Fisheries,” at 36 CFR 242.1-242.28 and 50 CFR 100.1-100.28, respectively. The regulations contain subparts as follows: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife.

    Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board comprises:

    • A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service;

    • The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs;

    • The Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service; and

    • Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.

    Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.

    In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Council). The Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.

    Jurisdictional Background and Perspective

    The Peratrovich case dates back to 1992 and has a long and involved procedural history. The plaintiffs in that litigation raised the question of which marine waters in the Tongass National Forest, if any, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. In its May 31, 2011, order, the U.S. District Court for Alaska (Court) stated that “it is the duty of the Secretaries [Agriculture & Interior] to identify any submerged lands (and the marine waters overlying them) within the Tongass National Forest to which the United States holds title.” It also stated that, if such title exists, it “creates an interest in [the overlying] waters sufficient to make those marine waters public lands for purposes of [the subsistence provisions] of ANILCA.”

    Most of the marine waters within the Tongass National Forest were not initially identified in the regulations as public lands subject to the subsistence priority based upon a determination that the submerged lands were State lands, and later through reliance upon a disclaimer of interest filed by the United States in Alaska v. United States, No. 128 Orig., 546 U.S. 413 (2006). In that case, the State of Alaska had sought to quiet title to all lands underlying marine waters in southeast Alaska, which includes most of the Tongass National Forest. Ultimately, the United States disclaimed ownership to most of the submerged lands in the Tongass National Forest. The Supreme Court accepted the disclaimer by the United States to title to the marine waters within the Tongass National Forest, excepting from that disclaimer several classes of submerged public lands that generally involve small tracts. Alaska v. United States, 546 U.S. at 415.

    When the United States took over the subsistence program in Alaska in 1990, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture stated in response to comments on the scope of the program during promulgation of the interim regulations that “the United States generally does not hold title to navigable waters and thus navigable waters generally are not included within the definition of public lands” (55 FR 27115; June 29, 1990). That position was changed in 1999 when the subsistence priority was extended to waters subject to a Federal reserved water right following the Katie John litigation. The Board identified certain submerged marine lands that did not pass to the State and, therefore, where the subsistence priority applied. However, the Board did not attempt to identify each and every small parcel of submerged public lands and thereby marine water possibly subject to the Federal Subsistence Management Program because of the potentially overwhelming administrative burden. Instead the Board invited the public to petition to have submerged marine lands included. Over the years, several small areas of submerged marine lands in the Tongass National Forest have been identified as public lands subject to the subsistence priority.

    In its May 31, 2011, order, the Court stated that the petition process was not sufficient and found that “concerns about costs and management problems simply cannot trump the congressional policy that the subsistence lifestyle of rural Alaskans be preserved as to public lands.” The Court acknowledged in its order that inventorying all these lands could be an expensive undertaking, but that it is a burden “necessitated by the `complicated regulatory scheme' which has resulted from the inability of the State of Alaska to implement Title VIII of ANILCA.” The Court then “enjoined” the United States “to promptly initiate regulatory proceedings for the purpose of implementing the subsistence provisions in Title VIII of ANILCA with respect to submerged public lands within Tongass National Forest” and directed entry of judgment.

    The BLM and USDA-FS started a time- and resource-consuming review of hundreds of potential pre-statehood (January 3, 1959) withdrawals in the marine waters of the Tongass National Forest. Both agencies are reviewing their records to identify dock sites, log transfer sites, and other areas that may not have passed to the State at statehood. The review process is ongoing and expected to take quite some time.

    Current Rule

    The Departments published a proposed rule on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36836), to amend the applicability and scope section of subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100. The proposed rule opened a comment period, which closed on August 8, 2016, and also announced public meetings to be held in several different locations throughout the state between September 28 and November 2, 2016. The Departments advertised the proposed rule by mail, email, web page, social media, radio, and newspaper, and comments were submitted via www.regulations.gov to Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2015-0159. During that period, the Councils met and, in addition to other Council business, received comments from the public and developed recommendations to the Board. The Councils had an opportunity to review the proposed rule and make recommendations for the final rule as described in more detail below.

    The Board met via a public teleconference on May 25, 2017. All briefings and documents presented to the Board were available to the public on the Program's web page and was advertised by mail, email, web page, social media, radio, and newspaper. After a briefing and deliberation the Board decided on the following recommendation to the Secretaries: “The Federal Subsistence Board recommends to the Secretaries that the lands listed in the proposed rule of June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36836) be included in the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska (36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100) for the purpose of implementing the subsistence provisions in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.”

    These final regulations reflect the Board's recommendation to the Secretaries after review and consideration of Council recommendations, Tribal and Alaska Native corporation consultations, and public comments. The public received extensive opportunity to review and comment on all changes.

    Summary of Comments Received and Responses

    The Board received one public comment from the State of Alaska. They did not object to the new listings, however they did claim ownership over the Makhnati Island submerged lands. We conferred with the Bureau of Land Management regarding the scope of patents 50-68-0194 and 50-90-0276. Neither of the patents includes the submerged lands that are the subject of this rule. Specifically, patent number 50-68-0194 includes Lot 82 of U.S. Survey 1763, which encompasses the upland area of Makhnati Island. However, the patent does not include either the adjacent submerged lands or the fill lands that connect Makhnati Island to the rest of the chain of islands. Similarly, patent 50-90-0267 includes lands surveyed on Japonski Island in U.S. Survey 1496, but it does not grant ownership to the State of any adjacent submerged lands.

    The Southeast Alaska Regional Advisory Council had no objections to these lands coming under Federal subsistence jurisdiction. They did comment that they felt they could not offer constructive discussion or provide a valuable recommendation; they addressed the desire for maps to be produced on each of these parcels, asked if the lands were aids to navigation, were the lands fully or partially submerged, and if there was a Federal interest in these lands. Responses will have to be researched since it was not provided in the listings provided by BLM. The North Slope and Yukon-Kuskokwim Regional Advisory Councils deferred to the Southeast Council. The Northwest Arctic Regional Advisory Council approved as written in the proposed rule. The Kodiak, Southcentral Alaska, Eastern Interior Alaska, Seward Peninsula, and Bristol Bay Regional Advisory Councils had no comments and took no action.

    Tribal consultation was offered statewide. No tribal entity requested specific consultation and no comments were offered via correspondence, during public hearings, or during consultations on different issues.

    Because this rule concerns public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.

    Conformance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities Administrative Procedure Act Compliance

    The Board has provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements, including publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register, participation in multiple Council meetings, additional public review and comment on all proposals for regulatory change, and opportunity for additional public comment during the Board meeting prior to deliberation. Additionally, an administrative mechanism exists (and has been used by the public) to request reconsideration of the Board's decision on any particular proposal for regulatory change (36 CFR 242.20 and 50 CFR 100.20). Therefore, the Board believes that sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons regarding Board decisions.

    In the more than 25 years that the Program has been operating, no benefit to the public has been demonstrated by delaying the effective date of the subsistence regulations. A lapse in regulatory control could affect the continued viability of fish or wildlife populations and future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans, and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon the date set forth in DATES to ensure continued operation of the subsistence program.

    National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.

    The following Federal Register documents pertain to this rulemaking:

    Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C: Federal Register Documents Pertaining to the Final Rule Federal Register citation Date of publication Category Details 57 FR 22940 May 29, 1992 Final Rule “Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska; Final Rule” was published in the Federal Register. 64 FR 1276 January 8, 1999 Final Rule Amended the regulations to include subsistence activities occurring on inland navigable waters in which the United States has a reserved water right and to identify specific Federal land units where reserved water rights exist. Extended the Federal Subsistence Board's management to all Federal lands selected under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska Statehood Act and situated within the boundaries of a Conservation System Unit, National Recreation Area, National Conservation Area, or any new national forest or forest addition, until conveyed to the State of Alaska or to an Alaska Native Corporation. Specified and clarified the Secretaries' authority to determine when hunting, fishing, or trapping activities taking place in Alaska off the public lands interfere with the subsistence priority. 66 FR 31533 June 12, 2001 Interim Rule Expanded the authority that the Federal Subsistence Board may delegate to agency field officials and clarified the procedures for enacting emergency or temporary restrictions, closures, or openings. 67 FR 30559 May 7, 2002 Final Rule Amended the operating regulations in response to comments on the June 12, 2001, interim rule. Also corrected some inadvertent errors and oversights of previous rules. 68 FR 7703 February 18, 2003 Direct Final Rule Clarified how old a person must be to receive certain subsistence use permits and removed the requirement that Regional Advisory Councils must have an odd number of members. 68 FR 23035 April 30, 2003 Affirmation of Direct Final Rule Because no adverse comments were received on the direct final rule (67 FR 30559), the direct final rule was adopted. 69 FR 60957 October 14, 2004 Final Rule Clarified the membership qualifications for Regional Advisory Council membership and relocated the definition of “regulatory year” from subpart A to subpart D of the regulations. 70 FR 76400 December 27, 2005 Final Rule Revised jurisdiction in marine waters and clarified jurisdiction relative to military lands. 71 FR 49997 August 24, 2006 Final Rule Revised the jurisdiction of the subsistence program by adding submerged lands and waters in the area of Makhnati Island, near Sitka, AK. This allowed subsistence users to harvest marine resources in this area under seasons, harvest limits, and methods specified in the regulations. 72 FR 25688 May 7, 2007 Final Rule Revised nonrural determinations. 75 FR 63088 October 14, 2010 Final Rule Amended the regulations for accepting and addressing special action requests and the role of the Regional Advisory Councils in the process. 76 FR 56109 September 12, 2011 Final Rule Revised the composition of the Federal Subsistence Board by expanding the Board by two public members who possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in
  • rural Alaska.
  • 77 FR 12477 March 1, 2012 Final Rule Extended the compliance date for the final rule (72 FR 25688) that revised nonrural determinations until the Secretarial program review is complete or in 5 years, whichever comes first. 80 FR 68249 November 4, 2015 Final Rule Revised the nonrural determination process and allowed the Federal Subsistence Board to define which communities and areas are nonrural.

    A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, determined that expansion of Federal jurisdiction does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment and, therefore, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact.

    Section 810 of ANILCA

    An ANILCA section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.

    During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of this rule was conducted in accordance with section 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the rule will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA section 810(a).

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require OMB approval. OMB has reviewed and approved the collections of information associated with the subsistence regulations at 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100, and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0075, which expires June 30, 2019.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. In general, the resources to be harvested under this rule are already being harvested and consumed by the local harvester and do not result in an additional dollar benefit to the economy. However, we estimate that two million pounds of meat are harvested by subsistence users annually and, if given an estimated dollar value of $3.00 per pound, this amount would equate to about $6 million in food value Statewide. Based upon the amounts and values cited above, the Departments certify that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. It does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Executive Order 12630

    Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this Program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. The implementation of this rule is by Federal agencies, and there is no cost imposed on any State or local entities or tribal governments.

    Executive Order 12988

    The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.

    Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not provide specific rights to tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Board provided Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations opportunities to consult on this rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”

    The Secretaries, through the Board, provided a variety of opportunities for consultation: commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.

    On January 10, 2017, the Board provided Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations a specific opportunity to consult on this rule prior to the start of its public regulatory meeting. Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations were notified by mail and telephone and were given the opportunity to attend in person or via teleconference.

    Executive Order 13211

    This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Drafting Information

    Theo Matuskowitz drafted these regulations under the guidance of Eugene R. Peltola, Jr. of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by

    • Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;

    • Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;

    • Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;

    • Carol Damberg, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and

    • Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional Office, USDA Forest Service.

    List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 242

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    50 CFR Part 100

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Subsistence Board amends title 36, part 242, and title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

    PART—SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.

    Subpart A—General Provisions 2. In subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100, amend § __.3 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words “Title VIII or ANILCA” and add in their place the words “Title VIII of ANILCA”; b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the word “A” and add in its place the word “All”; c. In paragraph (b)(2), remove “70 10′ ” and add in its place “70°10′ ” and remove “145 51′ ” and add in its place “145°51′ ”; d. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the word “cape” and add in its place the word “Cape” and remove “161 46′ ” and add in its place “161°46′ ”; and e. Revise paragraph (b)(5).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § __.3 Applicability and scope.

    (b) * * *

    (5) Southeastern Alaska, including the:

    (i) Makhnati Island Area: Land and waters beginning at the southern point of Fruit Island, 57°02′35″ north latitude, 135°21′07″ west longitude as shown on United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8244, May 21, 1941; from the point of beginning, by metes and bounds; S 58° W, 2,500 feet, to the southern point of Nepovorotni Rocks; S 83° W, 5,600 feet, on a line passing through the southern point of a small island lying about 150 feet south of Makhnati Island; N 6° W, 4,200 feet, on a line passing through the western point of a small island lying about 150 feet west of Makhnati Island, to the northwestern point of Signal Island; N 24° E, 3,000 feet, to a point, 57°03′15″ north latitude, 134°23′07″ west longitude; East, 2,900 feet, to a point in course No. 45 in meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496, on west side of Japonski Island; southeasterly, with the meanders of Japonski Island, U.S. Survey No. 1,496 to angle point No. 35, on the southwestern point of Japonski Island; S 60° E, 3,300 feet, along the boundary line of Naval reservation described in Executive Order No. 8216, July 25, 1939, to the point of beginning, and that part of Sitka Bay lying south of Japonski Island and west of the main channel, but not including Aleutski Island as revoked in Public Land Order 925, October 27, 1953, described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the southeast point of Japonski Island at angle point No. 7 of the meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496; thence east approximately 12.00 chains to the center of the main channel; thence S 45° E. along the main channel approximately 20.00 chains; thence S 45° W, approximately 9.00 chains to the southeastern point of Aleutski Island; thence S 79° W, approximately 40.00 chains to the southern point of Fruit Island; thence N 60° W, approximately 50.00 chains to the southwestern point of Japonski Island at angle point No. 35 of U.S. Survey No. 1496; thence easterly with the meanders of Japonski Island to the point of beginning including Charcoal, Harbor, Alice, Love, and Fruit islands and a number of smaller unnamed islands.

    (ii) Tongass National Forest:

    (A) Beacon Point, Frederick Sound, and Kupreanof Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8210—Sheet No. 16. The reference location is marked as 57 south, 79 east, CRM, SEC 8, U.S. Survey No. 1604. The point begins on the low-water line at N 63° W, true and approximately 1,520 feet from Beacon Point beacon; thence due south true 1,520 feet; thence true East 1,800 feet, more or less to an intersection with a low-water line; thence following, is the low-water line round the point to point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 133°00′ W, Lat. 56°561/4′ N).

    (B) Bushy Island and Snow Passage are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart, labeled No. 8160—Sheet No. 12. The reference location is marked as 64 south, 80 east, CRM, SEC. 31/32 on the map labeled, USS 1607. The point begins on a low-water line about 1/4 nautical miles and southwesterly from the northwest point of the island, from which a left tangent to an island that is 300 yards in diameter and 100 yards offshore, bears the location—N 60° W, true; thence S 60° E, true and more or less 2,000 feet to an intersection with a low-water line on the easterly side of the island; thence forward along the winding of the low-water line northwesterly and southwesterly to the point of the beginning, including all adjacent rocks and reefs not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°58′ W, Lat. 56°161/2′ N).

    (C) Cape Strait, Frederick Sound, and Kupreanof Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8210—Sheet No. 16. The reference location is marked as 56 south, 77478 east, CRM, on the map labeled as USS 1011. It begins at a point on a low-water line that is westerly from the lighthouse and distant 1,520 feet in a direct line from the center of the concrete pier upon which the light tower is erected; thence South 45° E, true by 1,520 feet; thence east true by 1,520 feet, more or less to an intersection with the low-water line; thence north-westerly and westerly, following the windings of the low-water line to the point of beginning (Approx. Long. 133°05′ W, Lat. 57°00′ N).

    (D) Point Colpoys and Sumner Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Prince of Wales Island—Sheet No. 12. The reference location is marked as 64 south, 78 east, CRM, SECs. 10, 11, 12 on the map labeled as USS 1634. Location is north of a true east-and-west line running across the point to 1,520 feet true south from the high-water line at the northernmost extremity. Map includes all adjacent rocks and ledges not covered at low water and also includes two rocks awash about 11/4 nautical miles east and South and 75° East, respectively, from the aforementioned point (Approx. Long. 133°12′ W, Lat. 56°20′ N).

    (E) Vank Island and Stikine Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 18. Located at 62 south, 82 east, CRM, SEC 34, on the map labeled as USS 1648. This part of the island is lying south of a true east-and-west line that is drawn across the island from low water to low water. Island is 760 feet due North from the center of the concrete pier upon which the structure for the light is erected (Approx. Long. 132°35′ W, Lat. 56°27′ N).

    (F) High Point, and Woronkofski Island, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 18. The location begins at a point on low water at the head of the first bight easterly of the point and about 1/8 nautical mile distant therefrom; thence south true 1,520 feet; thence west true 1,100 feet, more or less to an intersection with the low-water line; thence northerly and easterly, following the windings of the low-water line to point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°33′ W, Lat. 56°24′ N).

    (G) Key Reef and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 11. The reef lies 13/4 miles S. 80° E, true, from Bluff Island and becomes awash at extreme high water. Chart includes all adjacent ledges and rocks not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°50′ W, Lat. 56°10′ N).

    (H) Low Point and Zarembo Island, Alaska, are shown on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 22. The location begins at a point on a low-water line that is 760 feet in a direct line, easterly, from the center of Low Point Beacon. The position is located on a point of shoreline about 1 mile easterly from Low Point; thence S. 35° W, true 760 feet; thence N 800 feet and W 760 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the low-water line to the point of beginning (Approx. Long. 132°551/2′ W, Lat. 56°271/2′ N).

    (I) McNamara Point and Zarembo Island, Alaska, are shown on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 25. Location begins at a point on a low-water line that is 1,520 feet in a direct line, northerly, from McNamara Point Beacon— a slatted tripod structure; thence true east 1,520 feet; thence true south, more or less, 2,500 feet to an intersection with the low-water line; thence northwesterly and northerly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 133°04′ W, Lat. 56°20′ N).

    (J) Mountain Point and Wrangell Narrows, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8170—Sheet No. 27. The location begins at a point on a low-water line southerly from the center of Mountain Point Beacon and distant there from 1,520 feet in a direct line; thence true west 1,520 feet; thence true north, more or less, 3,480 feet to an intersection with the low-water line; thence southeasterly and southerly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°571/2′ W, Lat. 56°44′ N).

    (K) Angle Point, Revillagigedo Channel, and Bold Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8075—Sheet No. 3. The reference location is marked as 76 south, 92 east, CRM, USS 1603. The location begins at a point on a low-water line abreast of the lighthouse on Angle Point, the southwestern extremity of Bold Island; thence easterly along the low-water line to a point that is 3,040 feet in a straight line from the beginning point; thence N 30° W, True 3,040 feet; thence true west to an intersection with the low-water line, 3,000 feet, more or less; thence southeasterly along the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 131°26′ W, Lat. 55°14′ N).

    (L) Cape Chacon, Dixon Entrance, and Prince of Wales Island are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8074—Sheet No. 29. The reference location is marked as 83 south, 89 and 90 east, CRM, USS 1608. The location begins at a point at the low-water mark on the shore line of Dixon Entrance from which the southern extremity of Cape Chacon bears south 64° true East and approximately 3/4 nautical miles; thence N 45° true East and about 1 nautical mile, more or less, to an intersection with a low-water line on the shore of Clarence Strait; thence southerly, following the meanderings of the low-water line of the shore, to and around Cape Chacon, and continuing to the point of the beginning. Reference includes all adjacent islands, islets, rocks, and reefs that are not covered at the low-water line (Approx. Long 132° W, Lat. 54°42′ N).

    (M) Lewis Reef and Tongass Narrows are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8094—Sheet No. 71. The reference location is marked as 75 south, 90 east, CRM, SEC 9. The area point begins at the reef off of Lewis Point and partly bare at low water. This part of the reef is not covered at low water and lies on the northeast side of a true northwest-and-southeast line that is located 300 feet true southwest from the center of the concrete pier of Lewis Reef Light (Approx. Long. 131°441/2′ W, Lat. 55°22′25″ N).

    (N) Lyman Point and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey, Chart No. 8076—Sheet No. 8. The reference location is marked as 73 south, 86 east, CRM, SEC 13, on a map labeled as USS 2174 TRC. It begins at a point at the low-water mark. The aforementioned point is 300 feet in a direct line easterly from Lyman Point light; thence due south 300 feet; thence due west to a low-water mark 400 feet, more or less; thence following the winding of the low-water mark to place of beginning (Approx. Long. 132°18′ W, Lat. 35°35′ N).

    (O) Narrow Point, Clarence Strait, and Prince of Wales Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8100—Sheet No. 9. The reference location is marked as 70 south, 84 east, CRM, on a map labeled as USS 1628. The point begins at a point on a low-water line about 1 nautical mile southerly from Narrow Point Light, from which point a left tangent to a high-water line of an islet about 500 yards in diameter and about 300 yards off shore, bears south 30° true East; thence north 30° W, true 7,600 feet; thence N 60° E, 3,200 feet, more or less to an intersection with a low-water line; thence southeasterly, southerly, and southwesterly, following the winding of the low-water line to the point of the beginning. The map includes all adjacent rocks not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°28′ W, Lat. 55°471/2′ N).

    (P) Niblack Point, Cleveland Peninsula, and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8102—Sheet No. 6, which is the same sheet used for Caamano Point. The location begins at a point on a low-water line from which Niblack Point Beacon, a tripod anchored to three concrete piers, bears southeasterly and is 1,520 feet in a direct line; thence true northeast 1,520 feet; thence true southeast 3,040 feet; thence true southwest at 600 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a low-water line; thence northwesterly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°07′ W, Lat. 55°33′ N).

    (Q) Rosa Reef and Tongass Narrows are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8094—Sheet No. 71. The reference location is marked as 74 south, 90 east, CRM, SEC 31. That part of the reef is not covered at low water and lies east of a true north-and-south line, located 600 feet true west from the center of the concrete pier of Rosa Reef Light. The reef is covered at high water (Approx. Long. 131°48′ W, Lat. 55°24′ 15″ N).

    (R) Ship Island and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8100—Sheet No. 9. The reference location is marked as south, 8 east, CRM, SEC 27. The point begins as a small island on the northwesterly side of the Clarence Strait, about 10 nautical miles northwesterly from Caamano Point and 1/4 mile off the shore of Cleveland Peninsula. The sheet includes all adjacent islets and rocks not connected to the main shore and not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°12′ W, Lat. 55°36′ N).

    (S) Spire Island Reef and Revillagigedo Channel are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8075—Sheet No. 3. The reference location is marked as 76 south, 92 east, CRM, SEC 19.The detached reef, covered at high water and partly bare at low water, is located northeast of Spire Island. Spire Island Light is located on the reef and consists of small houses and lanterns surmounting a concrete pier. See chart for “Angle Pt.” (Approx. Long 131°30′ W, Lat. 55°16′ N).

    (T) Surprise Point and Nakat Inlet are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8051—Sheet No. 1. The reference location is marked as 80 south, 89 east, CRM. This point lies north of a true east-and-west line. The true east-and-west line lies 3,040 feet true south from the northernmost extremity of the point together with adjacent rocks and islets (Approx. Long. 130°44′ W, Lat. 54°49′ N).

    (U) Caamano Point, Cleveland Peninsula, and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8102—Sheet No. 6. Location consists of everything apart of the extreme south end of the Cleveland Peninsula lying on a south side of a true east-and-west line that is drawn across the point at a distance of 800 feet true north from the southernmost point of the low-water line. This includes off-lying rocks and islets that are not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 131°59′ W, Lat. 55°30′ N).

    (V) Meyers Chuck and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8124—Sheet No. 26. The small island is about 150 yards in diameter and located about 200 yards northwest of Meyers Island (Approx. Long. 132°16′ W, Lat. 55°441/2′ N).

    (W) Round Island and Cordova Bay, Alaska, are shown on the U.S coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8145—Sheet No. 36. The Southwestern Island of the group is about 700 yards

    long, including off-lying rocks and reefs that are not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°301/2′ W, Lat. 54°46 1/2′ N).

    (X) Mary Island begins at a point that is placed at a low-water mark. The aforementioned point is southward 500 feet from a crosscut on the side of a large rock on the second point below Point Winslow and Mary Island; thence due west 3/4 mile, statute; thence due north to a low-water mark; thence following the winding of the low water to the place of the beginning (Approx. Long. 131°11′ 00″ W, Lat. 55°05′ 55″ N).

    (Y) Tree Point starts a point of a low-water mark. The aforementioned point is southerly 1/2 mile from extreme westerly point of a low-water mark on Tree Point, on the Alaska Mainland; thence due true east, 3/4 mile; thence due north 1 mile; thence due west to a low-water mark; thence following the winding of the low-water mark to the place of the beginning (Approx. Long. 130°57′ 44″ W, Lat. 54°48′ 27″ N).

    Dated: April 20, 2018. David E. Schmid, Acting Regional Forester, USDA-Forest Service. Dated: May 15, 2018. David L. Bernhardt, Deputy Secretary. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10938 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P; 3411-15-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0035; FRL-9977-13] Clopyralid; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of clopyralid in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, it removes certain previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 23, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0035, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0035 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 23, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0035, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8528) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, clopyralid, (3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid), in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 4.0 parts per million (ppm); berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 4.0 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 5.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.5 ppm; radish, roots at 0.3 ppm; stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 2.0 ppm; and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 5.0 ppm. Additionally, upon establishment of the above new tolerances, the petitioner requests to amend 40 CFR 180.431 by removing the established tolerances for clopyralid in or on apple at 0.05 ppm, asparagus at 1.0 ppm, beet, garden, tops at 3.0 ppm, beet, sugar, tops at 3.0 ppm, brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 2.0 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 5.0 ppm, canola, seed at 3.0 ppm, cranberry at 4.0 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.5 ppm, strawberry at 4.0 ppm, and turnip, greens at 4.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to that comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Consistent with the authority in FFDCA 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is issuing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner sought. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for clopyralid including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with clopyralid follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Clopyralid has low acute toxicity via the dermal, oral, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a dermal irritant or sensitizer, but it is a severe eye irritant in its acid form.

    Toxicity was observed in the mouse after subchronic and chronic exposure and the rat and dog after chronic exposure, but consistent target organs were not identified. In dogs, reductions in red blood cell parameters, increased liver weight, and vacuolated adrenal cortical cells were observed, with skin lesions and clinical chemistry changes at the highest dose. In rats, stomach lesions were observed at the lowest-observed-adverse-effects level (LOAEL), and decreased body weight was observed at the high dose. In mice, the only observed effects were decreased body weight/body weight gain. No systemic toxicity was seen in a rabbit 21-day dermal toxicity study. The available toxicology studies did not indicate the potential for neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity or reproductive toxicity.

    The available database does not show evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative pre- and/or post-natal susceptibility in the available developmental or 2-generation reproduction toxicity studies. No developmental toxicity was observed in the rat at doses that caused maternal mortality. In the developmental study in the rabbit, decreased fetal body weight and hydrocephalus were observed, but only at a dose that caused significant maternal toxicity, including mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, and gastric mucosal lesions. Reproductive toxicity was not observed in the rat, but mean pup weights (day 28) were reduced, and relative pup liver weights were increased at doses that caused parental toxicity (decreased body weight/weight gain and food consumption; gastric lesions).

    There were no direct clinical or histopathological indications of neurotoxicity in the available studies at doses up to or exceeding the limit dose. Hydrocephalus was observed in the young in the rabbit developmental study, but only in the presence of significant maternal toxicity, including a high rate of mortality.

    Clopyralid is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” based on the lack of treatment-related tumors in the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies, and negative results of the genotoxicity assays.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by clopyralid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document SUBJECT: Clopyralid. Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed New Uses on Pome Fruit Group 11-10 and Radish Roots, Along with Various Crop Group/Subgroup Conversions and Expansions at pages 31-35 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0035.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for clopyralid used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Clopyralid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
  • assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 15 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.15 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.15 mg/kg/day
  • 2-Year Combined Chronic Toxicity-Carcinogenicity (oral)—rat.
  • LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day, based on increased epithelial hyperplasia and thickening of the limiting ridge of the stomach in both sexes.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL= 75 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Residential LOC for MOE = <100 Developmental Toxicity (oral)—rat.
  • Maternal LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day, based on mortality.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) Inhalation (or oral) study NOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Residential LOC for MOE = <100 Developmental Toxicity (oral)—rat.
  • Maternal LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day, based on mortality.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) routes “Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to clopyralid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing clopyralid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.431. EPA assessed dietary exposures from clopyralid in food as follows:

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

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

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment, EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) which incorporates consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary exposure assessment was based on tolerance-level residues, and assumed that 100 percent (PCT) of all crops were treated.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that clopyralid does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for clopyralid. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

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

    Based on the Pesticide Water Calculator Version 1.52 (PWC) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of clopyralid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.43 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 38.1 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 38.1 ppb was used to assess the contribution from drinking water.

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

    Clopyralid is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Weed control on lawns, turf and ornamentals in residential and public areas. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handler exposures are not expected since the residential uses require that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long-sleeved shirt and long pants; shoes plus socks) and/or personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves). As a result, a residential handler assessment was not conducted. Short-term post-application exposure is anticipated for children from incidental oral contact with treated turf (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth and soil ingestion). Post-application dermal exposure is also anticipated from residential use of clopyralid. However, systemic toxicity via the dermal route of exposure is not expected for clopyralid. Therefore, dermal risks were not quantitatively assessed for residential exposure.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

    EPA has not found clopyralid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and clopyralid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that clopyralid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative sensitivity/susceptibility in the developing or young animal. In the rat developmental toxicity study, no developmental toxicity was observed at a maternally toxic dose. In the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study, decreased pup weight (post-natal day 28), and increased relative liver weights were observed at the parental LOAEL. Hydrocephalus and decreased mean fetal weight were observed in the rabbit developmental study, but at a dose that also caused significant maternal toxicity, including mortality; therefore, quantitative or qualitative developmental susceptibility was not observed for clopyralid.

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

    i. The toxicity database for clopyralid is considered complete and no additional studies are required at this time.

    ii. There are no clinical or micropathological indications of neurotoxicity in the available subchronic and chronic studies in multiple species. Hydrocephalus was observed in fetuses in the rabbit developmental study, but only at a high dose that resulted in significant maternal toxicity, including mortality. There is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that clopyralid results in increased susceptibility in utero in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the dietary and residential exposure databases. EPA conducted the chronic dietary food exposure assessment based on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues of clopyralid, and default processing factors, where applicable. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to clopyralid in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by clopyralid.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

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

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to clopyralid from food and water will utilize 26% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of clopyralid is not expected.

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

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures and data results from a most recent previous EPA assessment of residential exposure, the Agency combined food, water, and short-term residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1600 for children. Because EPA's level of concern (LOC) for clopyralid is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

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

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, clopyralid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume II (PAM II) lists a method utilizing gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD) for determination of clopyralid residues in plant commodities (Method I or Method ACR 75.6).

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established MRLs for clopyralid residues on any commodities for which tolerances are established in this rule.

    C. Response to Comments

    One comment to the Notice of Filing was received from an anonymous commenter that stated, in part, that no clopyralid (pesticide) residue should be allowed on food crops.

    EPA's Response: The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should not be allowed on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This commenter's statements appear to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the commenter has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing individual tolerances in kohlrabi and broccoli, chinese as they were part of subgroup 5A, but not included in expansion crop group 5-16 for which a tolerance is being established by this action.

    EPA is not establishing the petitioned-for tolerance for Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H because it is not necessary. All commodities in subgroup 13-07H, plus strawberry, are included in subgroup 13-07G.

    In accordance with its standard practice to provide greater precision about the levels of residues that are permitted by a tolerance, EPA is adding an additional significant figure to the petitioned-for tolerance values for the following commodities: Fruit, stone, group 12-12 from 0.5 to 0.50 ppm and radish, roots from 0.3 to 0.30. This is to avoid the situation where residues may be higher than the tolerance level, but as a result of rounding would be considered non-violative (for example, radish, roots proposed at 0.3 ppm was established at 0.30 ppm, to avoid an observed hypothetical tolerance at 0.34 ppm being rounded to 0.3 ppm).

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of clopyralid, (3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid), in or on Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 4.0 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 5.0 ppm; broccoli, Chinese at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.50 ppm; kohlrabi at 2.0 ppm; radish, roots at 0.30 ppm; stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 2.0 ppm; and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 5.0 ppm. In addition, established tolerances in or on “apple”; “asparagus”; “beet, garden, tops”; “beet, sugar, tops”; “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A”; “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B”; “canola, seed”; “cranberry”; “fruit, stone, group 12”; “strawberry”; and “turnip, greens” are removed as they are superseded by this final tolerance rule.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 30, 2018. Daniel Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Amend the table in § 180.431(a) as follows: a. Add alphabetically the entries for “Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G”;“Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B”; “Broccoli, Chinese”; “Fruit, pome, group 11-10”; “Fruit, stone, group 12-12”; “Kohlrabi”; “Radish, roots”; “Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A”; “Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16”; and “Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2”. b. Remove the entries for “Apple”; “Asparagus”; “Beet, garden, tops”; “Beet, sugar, tops”; “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A”; “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B”; “Canola, seed”; “Cranberry”; “Fruit, stone, group 12”; “Strawberry”; and “Turnip, greens”.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 180.431 Clopyralid; Tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    *     Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G 4.0 Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B 5.0 *    *    *    *    *     Broccoli, Chinese 2.0 *    *    *    *    *     Fruit, pome, group 11-10 0.05 Fruit, stone, group 12-12 0.50 *    *    *    *    *     Kohlrabi 2.0 *    *    *    *    *     Radish, roots 0.30 *    *    *    *    *     Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A 1.0 *    *    *    *    *     Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 2.0 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 5.0 *    *    *    *    *    
    [FR Doc. 2018-10693 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 120919470-3513-02] RIN 0648-XG231 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Reopening of the Penaeid Shrimp Fishery Off Georgia AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; reopening.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS reopens the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Georgia in the South Atlantic to trawling for penaeid shrimp, i.e., for brown, pink, and white shrimp. NMFS previously closed penaeid shrimp trawling in the EEZ off Georgia on January 24, 2018. The reopening is intended to maximize harvest benefits while protecting the penaeid shrimp resource.

    DATES:

    The reopening is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, May 18, 2018, until the effective date of a notification of a closure which will be published in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Frank Helies, 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Penaeid shrimp in the South Atlantic are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    Under 50 CFR 622.206(a), NMFS may close the EEZ adjacent to South Atlantic states that have closed their waters to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp to protect the white shrimp spawning stock that has been severely depleted by cold weather or when applicable state water temperatures are 9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 consecutive days. Consistent with those procedures and criteria, after determining that unusually cold temperatures resulted in water temperatures of 9 °C (48 °F), or less, for at least 7 consecutive days in its state waters, the state of Georgia closed its waters on January 15, 2018, to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp. Georgia subsequently requested that NMFS implement a concurrent closure of the EEZ off Georgia.

    NMFS determined that Georgia's request for an EEZ closure conformed with the procedures and criteria specified in the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and, therefore, implemented the concurrent EEZ closure effective as of January 24, 2018 (83 FR 3404, January 25, 2018).

    During the closure, as specified in 50 CFR 622.206(a)(2), no person could: (1) Trawl for brown, pink, or white shrimp in the EEZ off Georgia; (2) possess on board a fishing vessel brown, pink, or white shrimp in or from the EEZ off Georgia unless the vessel is in transit through the area and all nets with a mesh size of less than 4 inches (10.2 cm) are stowed below deck; or (3) for a vessel trawling within 25 nautical miles of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, use or have on board a trawl net with a mesh size less than 4 inches (10.2 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut.

    The FMP and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 622.206(a) state that: (1) The closure will be effective until the ending date of the closure in the state waters, but may be ended earlier based on the state's request; and (2) if the closure is ended through a state's request, NMFS will terminate the closure of the EEZ by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. On May 16, 2018, the state of Georgia requested the EEZ be reopened as soon as possible, based on their biological sampling. The state of Georgia is continuing its monitoring of both water conditions and the penaeid shrimp population in state waters but has not yet determined when the state waters reopening will occur. Therefore, NMFS publishes this notification to reopen the EEZ off Georgia to the harvest of brown, pink, and white shrimp effective 12:01 a.m., local time, May 18, 2018.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on the reopening is unnecessary because the rule establishing the reopening procedures has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the reopening date. Additionally, allowing for prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this reopening is contrary to the public interest because it requires time, thus delaying the removal of a restriction and thereby reducing socio-economic benefits to the shrimp fishery. Also, the FMP procedures and implementing regulations require the penaeid shrimp trawling component based on the state's request, which Georgia requested to be as soon as possible.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR 622.206(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11009 Filed 5-18-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 100 Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 66 [Doc. No. AMS-TM-17-0050] National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of availability of informational webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing the availability of an informational webinar regarding the proposed National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS or standard). The proposed standard would require food manufacturers and other entities that label foods for retail sale to disclose information about bioengineered food and bioengineered food ingredients. The pre-recorded webinar will provide an overview of the background, provisions, and potential impacts of the proposed standard. Establishment and implementation of the new standard is required by recent amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be made available on the AMS website at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations beginning June 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Email: [email protected]; telephone: (202) 690-1300; or Fax: (202) 690-0338. Comments on the proposed rule sent to this email address will not be considered. Comments must be submitted through regulations.gov; by mail to the Docket Clerk, 1400 Independence Ave., AS, Room 4543-S, Washington, DC 20250; or by Fax to (202) 690-0338.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 29, 2016, Public Law 114-216 amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), as amended, and directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the NBFDS for disclosing any food that is or may be bioengineered. AMS published a proposed rule regarding the new standard in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018 (83 FR 19860). The proposed rule announced that AMS would be providing a webinar regarding the proposed NBFDS. The webinar, which is pre-recorded, will be made available to interested persons on the AMS website at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations beginning June 1, 2018. The webinar is intended to supply basic information about the proposed rule and several regulatory alternatives on which AMS is seeking public comment.

    The rule seeks comments on the proposed scope of the standard, including what foods should bear disclosures and what entities would be responsible for making disclosures. The rule proposes several alternatives for consideration, including methods of disclosure, and outlines procedures for recordkeeping and compliance. The proposed rule also seeks comments on the recordkeeping and information collection burden associated with the new standard. Comments on the proposed rule and on the information collection are being accepted through July 3, 2018, and should be submitted as directed in the May 4, 2018, Federal Register document.

    In conjunction with the proposed rule, AMS published a Regulatory Impact Analysis, which describes potential impacts of the rule under alternative scenarios. Comments on the regulatory impacts of the proposed NBFDS are also invited. The full text of the proposed rule, as well as the Regulatory Impact Analysis, may be viewed at www.regulations.gov.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Bruce Summers, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11025 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1081; Product Identifier 2017-SW-090-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for AgustaWestland S.p.A. (AgustaWestland) Model AW189 helicopters. This proposed AD would require replacing the tail plane lower fitting with an improved tail plane lower fitting. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracks on the tail plane fittings of Model AW189 helicopters. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1081; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0161, dated August 8, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo Helicopters (previously Finmeccanica S.p.A, AgustaWestand) Model AW189 helicopters. EASA advises that some cracks have been reported in-service on the tail plane fitting of AW189 helicopters following an onset of abnormal play. According to EASA, this condition, if not detected and corrected, could jeopardize structural integrity of the helicopter. EASA further advises that Leonardo Helicopters developed a tail plane lower fitting with an improved design (part number 8G0000P00511). Accordingly, EASA AD No. 2016-0161 requires repetitive inspections of the tail plane lower fitting assembly until the improved tail plane lower fitting is installed.

    Because the FAA is in the process of updating AgustaWestland's name changes to Finmeccanica S.p.A. and then to Leonardo Helicopters on its FAA type certificate, this proposed AD specifies AgustaWestland as the type certificate holder.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 189-038, Revision B, dated October 13, 2016, which specifies repetitively inspecting the tail plane assembly for a crack.

    We also reviewed BT No. 189-070, Revision A, dated October 13, 2016, which provides instructions for replacing the tail plane lower fitting with the improved tail plane lower fitting, retromodification part number (P/N) 8G0000P00511.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), replacing the tail plane fitting with tail plane retromodification kit P/N 8G0000P00511.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires inspecting the tail plane lower fitting for play within 50 flight hours and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 flight hours. If a crack or other damage exists, the EASA AD requires the improved tail plane lower fitting be installed within 10 flight hours. If no crack exists, the EASA AD requires that the improved tail plane lower fitting be installed within 200 flight hours or 2 months, whichever occurs first. This proposed AD would not require inspections and would require installing the improved tail plane lower fitting within 50 hours TIS.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect that replacing the tail plane lower fitting with an improved tail plane lower fitting would require 64 work-hours and parts would cost $15,424 for a total cost of $20,864 per helicopter and $41,728 for the U.S. fleet.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): AgustaWestland S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2017-1081; Product Identifier 2017-SW-090-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AW189 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail plane lower fitting P/N 8G5350A07051 installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on a tail plane fitting, which could result in failure of the tail plane fitting and loss of helicopter control.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 23, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours time-in-service, install tail plane retromodification kit part number 8G0000P00511.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 189-038, Revision B, and BT No. 189-070, Revision A, both dated October 13, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0161, dated August 8, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5510, Horizontal Stabilizer Structure.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 15, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10918 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0947; Product Identifier 2017-SW-059-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II helicopters. This proposed AD would require visually checking each tail rotor blade for a crack. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of cracking in certain tail rotor blades. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0947; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone (310) 539-0508; fax (310) 539-5198; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Guo, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5357; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Robinson R44 and R44 II helicopters with a tail rotor blade part number (P/N) C029-1 or P/N C029-2 installed. This proposed AD would require checking the tail rotor blades for cracks within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter before each flight.

    This proposed AD is prompted by reports of P/N C029-1 and P/N C029-2 tail rotor blades with fatigue cracks at the leading edge. The cracks were caused by high fatigue stresses due to resonance when the blades were at high pitch angles from large left pedal inputs. Robinson consequently issued R44 Service Bulletin SB-83, dated May 30, 2012 (SB-83). At the time SB-83 was issued, the reports of cracking on the tail rotor blade were isolated and infrequent. Since 2015, five events have been reported of helicopters with cracking on tail rotor blades. Therefore, we are proposing actions that are intended to detect a cracked tail rotor blade and prevent loss of the blade and subsequent loss of directional control.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information

    We have reviewed Robinson SB-83 which specifies, within 10 flight hours or by June 30, 2012, whichever occurs first, inserting a caution page into the Pilot's Operating Handbook. The caution page specifies inspecting the leading edges of each tail rotor blade for a crack before each flight. The caution page also advises that to reduce fatigue stress damage to the tail rotor blades, pilots should avoid maneuvers that require large left pedal inputs. SB-83 specifies that the caution page may be removed when the tail rotor blades are replaced with tail rotor blade P/N C029-3.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require within 50 hours TIS and thereafter before each flight, visually checking each tail rotor blade for a crack in the tail leading edge, paying particular attention to the most inboard white paint stripe. An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the required visual check and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of the AD into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves only a visual check and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.

    This proposed AD also would require before further flight, replacing any cracked tail rotor blade.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Robinson SB SB-83 requires compliance within 10 flight hours or by June 30, 2012, whichever occurs first. This proposed AD would require compliance within 50 hours TIS. Given the helicopter's history and the type of operations conducted by the current fleet, we determined that this compliance time is adequate to reduce the risk of a crack on the tail rotor blade to an acceptable level.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,631 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Visually checking the tail rotor blades for a crack would require 0.2 hour for a cost of $17 per helicopter and $27,727 for the U.S. fleet per check cycle. Replacing a tail rotor blade, if required, would require 2 work-hours and parts would cost $3,080 for a cost of $3,250 per blade.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by Reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Robinson Helicopter Company: Product No. FAA-2017-0947; Product Identifier 2017-SW-059-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R44 and R44 II helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor blade part number (P/N) C029-1 or P/N C029-2 installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a tail rotor blade. This condition could result in the loss of the tail rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 23, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD and thereafter before each flight:

    (1) Visually check each tail rotor blade for a crack in the tail leading edge, paying particular attention to the area in the most inboard white paint stripe. Wipe the blades clean, if necessary, to ensure any potential crack is visible. The actions required by this paragraph may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

    (2) If there is a crack, before further flight, replace the tail rotor blade.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: James Guo, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5357; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    Robinson Helicopter Company R44 Service Bulletin SB-83, dated May 30, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance, CA 90505; telephone (310) 539-0508; fax (310) 539-5198; or at http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm. You may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 14, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10919 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0255; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-6] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; St Marys, GA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St Marys, GA, because St Marys Airport has closed, and controlled airspace is no longer required at this location.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg Ground Floor, Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0255; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St Marys Airport, St Marys, GA, due to the closing of this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0255; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see “ADDRESSES” section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0255; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASO-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at St Marys Airport, St Marys, GA. This airport has closed. Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary at this site.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth ASO GA E5 St Marys, GA [Removed] Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 16, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10946 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0068] RIN 2105-AE63 Traveling by Air With Service Animals AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is seeking comment on amending its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulation on transportation of service animals. The Department has heard from the transportation industry, as well as individuals with disabilities, that the current ACAA regulation could be improved to ensure nondiscriminatory access for individuals with disabilities, while simultaneously preventing instances of fraud and ensuring consistency with other Federal regulations. The Department recognizes the integral role that service animals play in the lives of many individuals with disabilities and wants to ensure that individuals with disabilities can continue using their service animals while also helping to ensure that the fraudulent use of other animals not qualified as service animals is deterred and animals that are not trained to behave properly in the public are not accepted for transport as service animals.

    DATES:

    Comments should be filed by July 9, 2018. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2018-0068 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number DOT-OST-2018-0068 or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maegan Johnson, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected] (email). You may also contact Blane Workie, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Current Service Animal Requirements

    DOT considers a service animal to be any animal that is individually trained to assist to a qualified person with a disability or any animal necessary for the emotional well-being of a passenger.1 U.S. airlines must transport all service animals regardless of species with a few narrow exceptions.2 U.S. airlines are not required to accommodate certain unusual service animals, such as snakes, reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders.3 Under DOT's current rule, airlines may also refuse to carry other animals if the airline determines: (1) There are factors precluding the animal from traveling in the cabin of the aircraft, such as the size or weight of the animal; (2) the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others; (3) it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service; or (4) the law of a foreign country that is the destination of the flight would prohibit entry of the animal.4 DOT requires foreign air carriers to transport only service dogs.5 However, under DOT rules, a U.S. carrier is held responsible if a passenger traveling under the U.S. carrier's code is not allowed to travel with another type of service animal (e.g., cat) on a flight operated by its foreign code share partner.6

    1 See 14 CFR 382.117(i) and Guidance Concerning Service Animals, 73 FR 27614, 27659 (May 13, 2008).

    2 14 CFR 382.117(a).

    3 14 CFR 382.117(f).

    4Id.

    5Id.

    6 See 14 CFR 382.7(c). As a matter of prosecutorial discretion, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has chosen not pursue actions against U.S. airlines when it has found these types of violations.

    Regarding emotional support animals (ESA) and psychiatric service animals (PSA), DOT requires airlines to recognize these animals as service animals, but allows airlines to require that ESA and PSA users provide a letter from a licensed mental health professional of the passenger's need for the animal.7 To enable airlines sufficient time to assess the passenger's documentation, DOT permits airlines to require 48 hours' advance notice of a passenger's wish to travel with an ESA or PSA.8 ESAs and PSAs differ from one another in that PSAs, like other traditional service animals, are trained to perform a specific task for a passenger with a disability. In contrast, ESAs provide emotional support for a passenger with a mental/emotional disability but are not trained to perform specific tasks. However, DOT expects that all service animals are trained to behave properly in a public setting.

    7 14 CFR 382.117(e).

    8 14 CFR 382.27(c)(8).

    Under the existing service animal regulations, it is generally not permissible to insist on written credentials or documentation for an animal as a condition for treating it as a service animal, except for an ESA or PSA. DOT requires airlines to accept animals as service animals based on the “credible verbal assurances” of the passengers.9 Airlines may also not charge for the transport of service animals.10

    9 14 CFR 382.117(d).

    10 14 CFR 382.31(a).

    The Department's disability rule permits airlines not to transport service animals that pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause a significant disruption of cabin service. In guidance referenced in the Department's service animal rule, DOT has advised airlines to observe the behavior of the service animal to determine if it is a properly trained animal as such an animal will calmly remain by its owner.11 The animal should not run freely, bark or growl at other persons, urinate or defecate in the gate area, or bite.12 Observing the behavior of the animal assists airline personnel in making a case-by-case determination as to whether the animal may pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or may create a significant disruption in cabin service. Airlines are not required to accept for transport animals that do not behave properly in public, even if the animal performs an assistive function for a passenger with a disability or is necessary for the passenger's emotional well-being, as the animal could pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others and/or cause a significant disruption of cabin service.13

    11

    12 See Guidance Concerning Service Animals, 73 FR 27614, 27659 (May 13, 2008).

    13Id. at 27658.

    The Department's current service animal regulation does not contain a limitation on the number of service animals that may accompany an individual with a disability. The regulation references guidance that states that a single passenger legitimately may have two or more service animals.14 As a matter of enforcement discretion, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has not taken action against airlines when airlines declined requests to transport more than three service animals for a single passenger.15 DOT's service animal rule also does not contain any leash, tether, muzzle, or containment requirements. Prior DOT guidance explained that a requirement for a service animal to be muzzled or harnessed would be appropriate only as a means of mitigating a direct threat to the health or safety of others, such as muzzling a dog that barks frequently.16 As for transporting a service animal in a carrier, an order from the Federal Aviation Administration explained that a service animal may safely sit in the lap of its owner for all phases of flight, including ground movement, take-off, and landing if the service animal is no larger than a lap-held child (a child who has not reached his or her second birthday).17

    14Id. at 27661.

    15 DOT, Revised Service Animal Matrix, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0150 (July 6, 2016).

    16 See Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation, 68 FR 24874, 24875 (May 9, 2003).

    17 Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Air Transportation (FSAT 04-01A), Order 8400.10 (July 23, 2004).

    Need for a Rulemaking Consumer Complaints

    The Department continues to receive complaints from individuals with service animals. DOT received 110 service animal complaints in 2016 and 70 service animal complaints in 2017 against airlines. In 2016, the third highest disability complaint area concerned service animals, and in 2017, it was the fifth highest.18 U.S. and foreign airlines reported receiving 2,443 service animal complaints in 2016 and 2,499 service animal complaints in 2017. This was the fourth largest disability complaint area for airlines during both years. Over 60 percent of the service animal complaints received by the Department concern ESAs and PSAs. Most of the service animal complaints involving ESAs or PSAs are from passengers with disabilities who are upset that the airline is not accepting their animals for transport.

    18 The four categories of disability service that typically receive the highest number of DOT-reported complaints are wheelchair assistance/transportation within the airport, delay/damage to assistive devices, seating accommodations, and service animals. See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/286306/2016-summary-totals-us-air-carriers_0.pdf In conjunction with stakeholders, the DOT has recently developed training material on all four of these topics for the benefit of both passengers and carrier personnel. See https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/traveling-disability.

    Unusual Species

    The use of unusual species as service animals has also added confusion. Passengers have attempted to fly with peacocks, ducks, turkeys, pigs, iguanas, and various other types of animals as emotional support or service animals. Airlines have expressed concerns about the amount of attention and resources that are expended when having to accommodate unusual service animals. Disability rights advocates have voiced alarm that these animals may erode the public's trust, which could result in reduced access for many individuals with disabilities who use traditional service animals. Advocates have also expressed concern that these animals lack the ability to be trained to behave properly in a public setting.

    Pets

    Many airlines also indicated that they believe passengers wishing to travel with their pets may be falsely claiming that their pets are service animals so they can take their pet in the aircraft cabin or to avoid paying a fee for their pets. The increase in the number of service animals in aircraft cabins has led some to believe that many of these animals are really pets but are being passed off as service animals. There is also concern that vests, harnesses, and other items, which traditionally have been considered to be physical indicators of a service animal's status, are easily purchased online by fliers trying to misrepresent their pets as service animals. Airlines have also reported to the Department that certain entities may, for a fee, be providing individuals with pets a letter stating that the individual is a person with a mental or emotional disability and that their animal is an ESA or PSA, when in fact they are not.

    Misbehavior by Service Animals

    Airlines and airline associations have contacted the Department to express concerns that passengers are increasingly bringing untrained service animals onboard aircraft and putting the safety of crewmembers and other passengers at risk. According to one airline, there has been an 84 percent spike since 2016 in the number of behavior-related service animal problems, including urinating, defecating, or biting. Another airline reports that there has been a 75 percent increase in the number of emotional support animals that it transports when comparing calendar year 2016 to calendar year 2017. This airline appears to believe that this has resulted in a significant increase in onboard incidents. In addition, there have been a few highly-publicized reports of service animals biting passengers. While the current rule anticipates that airline personnel will assess service-animal behavior in the gate area and weed out misbehaving service animals prior to boarding the aircraft, airlines have indicated gate staff are oftentimes too busy to observe the behavior of service animals. Airlines also note that even if they were to observe an animal prior to entering the aircraft, the animal may act differently once exposed to the confinement in the cabin or once the aircraft departs.

    Airport

    Another concern is the differences, in the airport terminal context, between DOT's ACAA regulations that apply to airlines, and their facilities and services, contrasted with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations that apply to airports, and their facilities and services. DOJ's Title II rules for State and local governments govern airports owned by a public entity; DOJ's Title III rules for public accommodations and commercial facilities govern privately owned airports and airport facilities operated by businesses like restaurants and stores. DOJ defines “service animal” as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.19 Emotional support animals are not recognized as service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. 20 However, under the ACAA, a service animal is any animal that is individually trained to provide assistance to a qualified person with a disability or any animal that assist persons with disabilities by providing emotional support.21 Consequently, a restaurant or store in an airport could, without violating DOJ rules, deny entry to a properly documented emotional support animal or service cat that an airline, under the ACAA, would have to accept. Further, some airports are exercising their authority under the ADA to require that emotional support animals be contained in a pet carrier when traversing through areas of the airport not owned, leased, or controlled by airlines.

    19 See 28 CFR 36.104. Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual's disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

    20See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, 75 FR 56236, 56269 (September 15, 2010). “In the final rule, the Department [of Justice] has retained its position on the exclusion of emotional support animals from the definition of “service animal.”

    21 See Guidance Concerning Service Animals, 73 FR 27614, 27658 (May 13, 2008).

    Request for Rulemaking

    The Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSDS), an advocacy group representing users of psychiatric service dogs, petitioned the Department in 2009 to eliminate a provision in the Department's Air Carrier Access Act regulation that permitted airlines to require documentation and 48 hours' advance notice for users of psychiatric service animals.22 PSDS emphasized that the Department should not equate psychiatric service animals to emotional support animals. It noted that PSAs differ significantly from ESAs in that PSAs are trained to behave properly in public settings and trained to mitigate the effects of a mental health-related disability. PSDS also asserted that the Department is discriminating against and stigmatizing individuals with mental health-related disabilities who use PSAs by imposing additional procedural requirements on users of PSAs that are not imposed on service animals used by individuals with physical disabilities. PSDS further raised practical concerns with the current documentation requirement (e.g., financial hardship on PSA users without health insurance) and advance notice requirement (e.g., difficulty PSA users experience when they need to fly on short notice because of a family emergency). The Department subsequently issued a notice in the Federal Register seeking comment on the group's petition and related questions to assist the Department in determining whether to grant the petition by initiating a rulemaking or to deny the petition and retain the provision without change.23 Interested parties can read the entire petition and comments received at DOT-OST-2009-0093. The Department is granting the petition by issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    22 See Psychiatric Service Dog Society, DOT-OST-2009-0093-0001 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2009-0093-000 (April 21, 2009).

    23 See 74 FR 47902, 47905 (September 18, 2009).

    A few months ago, the Department also received a request to initiate a rulemaking to amend its service animal regulation from Airlines for America (A4A). A4A asks that DOT harmonize its service animal definition under its Air Carrier Access Act regulation with the DOJ's Americans with Disabilities Act regulation. A4A would also like the Department to allow airlines to require all service animal users to provide a letter from a licensed physician or mental health professional stating that the passenger is under his or her care for the condition requiring the service animal and specifying that the passenger needs the animal for an accommodation in air travel or at the passenger's destination. It asks that DOT delete all mentions in DOT's ACAA regulations or guidance suggesting that items such as vests, harnesses, ID cards, or other potential indicators other than a letter described above should be accepted as proof that the animal is qualified to be carried. A4A further asks that if DOT allows ESAs and PSAs, it limit the types of ESAs and PSAs that airlines are required to accommodate.24 In a subsequent letter to the Department, A4A stressed the need to amend the Department's service animal regulation to protect the health and safety of passengers and crew because of an increase in passengers bringing animals onboard that have not been properly trained as service animals. In that letter, A4A noted that it expects airlines will be taking the appropriate steps to ensure the safety and health of passengers and crew.25 In February 2018, ten disability advocacy organizations expressed concern to the Department with the revised service animal policies announced by two airlines and urged the Department to take action to stop the proliferation of patch work service animal access requirements.26

    24 Comments of Airlines for America Part II—Proposals for Repeal or Amendment of Specific DOT Economic Regulations, DOT, DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751, 26-32 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751 (December 1, 2017).

    25 Letter from Sharon L. Pinkerton, Airlines for America, to James Owens, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Transportation (January 31, 2018) at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0314.

    26 Letter to Secretary Chao from American Association of People with Disabilities, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, National Association of the Deaf, National Disability Rights Network, Paralyzed Veterans of America, The Arc of the United States, The National Council on Independent Living, and United Spinal Association (February 6, 2018) at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0315.

    In response to the President's direction in Executive Orders (E.O.) 13771, E.O. 13777, and E.O. 13783, as well as other legal authorities, the Department published a Notice of Regulatory Review in the Federal Register on October 2, 2017, inviting public comment on existing rules and other agency actions that are good candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension, or modification. 27 The Department received comments from airlines and airline associations regarding the need to revise the Department's ACAA service animal regulations, raising a number of issues that will be explored in this rulemaking.28

    27 82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017).

    28See, e.g., Comment from Airlines for America at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751 (December 4, 2017); Comment from International Air Transport Association at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2697 (December 1, 2017); Comment from Kuwait Airways at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2679 (December 1, 2017); and Comment from National Air Carrier Association at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2771 (December 4, 2017).

    FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016

    The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 requires that the Department issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on five issues—(1) supplemental medical oxygen; (2) service animals; (3) accessible lavatories on single-aisle aircraft; (4) carrier reporting of disability service requests; and (5) seating accommodations. With respect to service animals, the rulemaking needs to address, at a minimum, species limitations and the documentation requirement for users of emotional support and psychiatric service animals.29

    29 FAA Extension Safety and Security Act of 2016, 114 Public Law 190, Section 2108 (July 15, 2016); In-Flight Medical Oxygen and other ACAA issues, RIN 2015-AE12, https://cms.dot.gov/regulations/significant-rulemaking-report-archive (June 2016).

    ACCESS Advisory Committee

    In April 2016, DOT established an Advisory Committee on Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS Advisory Committee) to negotiate and develop a proposed rule concerning accommodations for air travelers with disabilities addressing in-flight entertainment/communications, accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft, and service animals.30 The ACCESS Advisory Committee, comprised of 27 members, was tasked with submitting three recommendations to the Department—one on each of the three separate issues. Because the negotiations address three disparate issues and some Committee members did not have a stakeholder and/or expert interest with respect to certain issues, each Committee member determined for himself or herself whether they would work on one or more of the issues. Of the 27 Committee members, 19 had stakeholder and/or expert interest with respect to service animals and actively worked on service animal issues. These members represented a balanced cross-section of significantly affected stakeholder interests.31

    30 81 FR 20265 (Apr. 7, 2016).

    31 The 19 ACCESS Advisory Committee members on the service animal subcommittee were from the following organizations: United Airlines; National Council on Independent Living (NCIL); National Disability Rights Network; National Federation of the Blind (NFB); National Air Carrier Association; Jet Blue Airlines; Association of Flight Attendants-CWA; International Air Transport Association; West Jet Airlines; Delta Air Lines; Psychiatric Service Dog Partners (PSDP); Lufthansa Airlines; Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); Frontier Airlines; National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI); Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind (GDFB); American Council of the Blind (ACB); Regional Airline Association; and U.S. Department of Transportation. These organizations were selected to represent not only the interest of that individual's own organization but rather the collective stakeholder interests of organizations in the same stakeholder category.

    Despite good faith efforts, the ACCESS Advisory Committee was not able to reach consensus on how the service animals regulations should be revised. Nevertheless, the Department was able to gather useful information during this process from disability rights advocates, the airline industry, an association representing flight attendants, and other interested parties. The Committee members and other interested parties spent considerable time discussing the following issues: (1) Distinguishing between emotional support animals and other service animals; (2) limiting the species of service animals that airlines are required to transport; (3) limiting the number of service animals that a single individual should be permitted to transport; and (4) requiring attestation from all service animal users that their animal has been trained to behave in a public setting. Each of these issues are discussed in turn.

    Emotional Support Animals—Species Limitation and Containment

    Airlines uniformly opposed the continued recognition of ESAs in the ACAA context, as they are not recognized under the ADA.32 Carriers urged DOT to harmonize its definition of service animal under the ACAA with the DOJ definition of service animal under the ADA by eliminating ESAs and limiting service animals to dogs and where reasonable miniature horses.33 Carriers also proposed eliminating access for emotional support animals as they consider these animals to cause most in-flight disruptions.

    32Carrier Response to Revised Service Animal Proposal, August 31,2016 (Revised September 8, 2016), at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0209. (September 8, 2016).

    33 DOJ, while not recognizing miniature horses as service animals, requires that entities covered by the ADA permit individuals with disabilities to use miniature horses where reasonable if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. See 28 CFR 36.302.

    Advocates were united in supporting access for emotional support animals under the ACAA and wanted a legal classification for ESAs separate from service animals in recognition of the fact that emotional support animals are not trained to perform work or tasks to mitigate disability.34 However, they disagreed about which species should be allowed access as emotional support animals and what type of access they should have.

    34Service Animal Advocates Position and Reasoning at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0208 (September 15, 2016).

    Two disability organizations—International Association of Canine Professionals and Assistance Dogs International—proposed limiting ESAs to cats and dogs and requiring that they be in approved pet carriers for the duration of a passenger's flight unless needed for disability mitigation. These two organizations stated that they do not support including rabbits as ESAs because rabbits may excrete out of the carrier.35 Five disability organizations—Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind, Open Doors Organization, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Guide Dog Users, Inc.—proposed limiting ESAs to dogs, cats, and rabbits and requiring that they be contained in approved pet carriers, except when needed for disability mitigation. They stated that cats and dogs are common emotional support animals, and rabbits should also be included as they can have soothing tendencies beyond those of cats and dogs. They were opposed to extending ESA status to other animals as they believe employee training and expertise on service animals have limits and are concerned that the proliferation of nontraditional species as service animals would erode public trust toward service animal users generally.36

    35Id. at 15.

    36Id. at 7.

    Six other disability organizations—Paralyzed Veterans of America, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Federation of the Blind, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Easterseals—wanted household birds to also be recognized as ESAs and were in favor of containment for cats, rabbits, and birds, except when needed for disability mitigation.37 They asserted that emotional support dogs that are trained to behave in public, but not trained to provide disability mitigation,38 do not require a pet carrier. The advocates all stated that when the emotional support animal is providing disability mitigation, the animal should be tethered to the handler and under control of the handler.39

    37Id. at 12.

    38 The ACCESS Committee discussions brought to light the distinction between disability mitigation training, which is training designed to teach service animals how to assist an individual with his or her disability, and public access training, which is training designed to teach a service animal how to behave properly in a public setting. For instance, an animal that has received disability mitigation training knows how to guide a passenger with a vision impairment, retrieve an item for a passenger with a mobility impairment, or perform a task or function to assist an individual with a disability with his or her needs. Service animals that have received proper public access training would not attack or bite people or animals, urinate or defecate in the gate area or on the aircraft, growl or lunge at people or other animals, or exhibit other signs of misbehavior.

    39Id. at 4 and 12.

    Airlines and the flight attendant association urged the Department to allow airlines to require that ESAs that fit in pet carriers be kept there for the duration of the flight, if airlines are required to continue carrying ESAs. The airlines and flight attendant association stated that it would be difficult to enforce a rule that allowed ESAs to be out of the carrier when providing disability mitigation as it would necessitate a subjective assessment by flight attendants as to the reason the ESA is not in the carrier. They also expressed concern about the ability of airline personnel to distinguish between ESAs and PSAs as airline personnel have not been trained to recognize the difference between these animals.

    Service Animals—Species Limitation

    There was a consensus among ACCESS Committee members that the Department should limit the types of species recognized as service animals (including PSAs) and that this limit would provide greater predictability and added assurance of access for individuals with disabilities with legitimate service animals. The discussion about the type of animal that should be recognized as a service animal focused on dogs, miniature horses, capuchin monkeys, and cats. While there was no agreement on whether all the animals should be recognized as service animals, there was agreement that other animals should not be allowed as service animals.

    1. Dogs

    Representatives of airlines and certain disability organizations (Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind & America's VetDogs, International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), Open Doors Organization, National Federation of the Blind, Assistance Dogs International, and Guide Dog Users, Inc.) supported limiting coverage of service animals to dogs.40

    40Service Animal Advocates Position and Reasoning, p. 1 and 2 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0208 (September 15, 2016).

    2. Capuchin Monkeys

    Disability groups supported recognizing capuchin monkeys as service animals,41 with a requirement that they must be kept in a pet carrier due to their unpredictable aggressive behavior. Capuchin monkeys provide in-home services to individuals with paraplegia and quadriplegia and are used by individuals with disabilities primarily or exclusively in their homes. Those who support recognizing capuchin monkeys as service animals pointed out that they can perform manually dexterous work or tasks that dogs and miniature horses cannot. It was also pointed out that air travel for these monkeys as service animals could be limited to when individuals with disabilities have to leave home due to an emergency or for the initial delivery of the monkey to the individual with a disability.

    41Id. at 1, 4 and 6. See Service Animal -Helping Hands Monkey Helper Presentation at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0182 (August 26, 2016). See also Carrier Response to Revised Service Animal Proposal 31 August Revised 8 September, p.2 at (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0209) (September 8, 2016).

    3. Miniature Horses

    There was also general support among disability rights advocates to provide, on a case-by-case basis, access to miniature horses trained to provide disability mitigation.42 Miniature horses have specific features that make them a better choice for some persons with disabilities—longer working life, allergen avoidance, religious conformance, and soundness of structure for mobility work.

    42Service Animal Advocates Position and Reasoning, p. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0208 (September 15, 2016).

    4. Cats

    Some disability rights organizations (Paralyzed Veterans of America, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Easterseals, National Multiple Sclerosis Society) supported recognizing cats as service animals as there was a suggestion that cats provide disability mitigation related to seizure alert.

    Airlines and certain other disability rights organizations (Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind & America's VetDogs, International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), Open Doors Organization, National Federation of the Blind, Assistance Dogs International, Guide Dog Users, Inc.) opposed recognizing cats as service animals as they are not recognized as service animals under the ADA and the information about cats' ability to alert individuals of seizures was limited.43 There was also concern expressed that the popularity of cats as pets would open the door for fraud if they are an allowed species.

    43Id. at 2. See also Carrier Response to Revised Service Animal Proposal 31 August Revised 8 September, p.2 at (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0209), (September 8, 2016).

    Number of Service Animals Per Passenger

    During the negotiations, the advocates and airlines both appeared to agree that reasonable restrictions should be imposed on the number of service animals that one passenger should be permitted to carry. On balance, the advocates and airlines also appeared to agree that certain passengers may have a legitimate need to travel with more than one service animal. Both the airlines and advocates appear to support a requirement that a passenger seeking to travel with more than one service animal may be required to provide reasonable justification to the airline as to the passenger's need to do so. However, there did not appear to be agreement on what would constitute reasonable justification. The airlines also supported a limit of two service animals for any single passenger.44 There did not appear to be agreement from the advocates on the number of service animals that a single passenger should be allowed to carry.

    44Id. at 3.

    Documentation/Attestation

    Various disability rights advocates have stated that a top goal is the elimination of the current DOT requirement to provide medical documentation as a condition of access for users of PSAs and ESAs. As a possible alternative to the documentation requirements for ESAs and PSAs in the current rule, the advocates on the committee proposed the use of a “Decision Tree” model. Under this model, all individuals with a disability who wished to travel with a service animal would fill out an online questionnaire, wherein they would provide answers to questions targeted toward assisting the airline to determine specifics about the service animal/emotional support animal in question (e.g., species of animal, whether the animal is a service animal or an emotional support animal, and number of animals). During this process, information would also be provided to the passenger regarding his or her responsibilities when traveling with a service animal (e.g., how a service animal should behave and the consequences for fraudulently representing a pet as a service animal).45

    45Service Animal Advocates Position and Reasoning, p. 16 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0208 (September 15, 2016).

    The majority of the U.S. airlines appeared to be receptive to the idea of the decision tree, but would only accept that option as an alternative to the current documentation requirements if it were made mandatory for all individuals with a disability traveling with a service animal to complete as a condition of travel, and if it included strong language designed to dissuade individuals from committing fraud by plainly stating the consequences that would follow should an individual attempt to falsely claim that their pet is a service animal.46 The advocates were mostly opposed to making the decision tree mandatory because they believed that making it mandatory would increase the burden for service animal users who, under the current rule, are not required to provide documentation or advance notice when traveling with a service animal. The foreign airlines appeared not to support the decision tree model even if mandatory.

    46See Carrier Response to Revised Service Animal Proposal 31 August Revised 8 September, p.1 at (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0209), (September 8, 2016).

    Various suggestions were made as possible compromises, including a mandatory attestation statement that all individuals traveling with a service animal would certify in lieu of the proposed decision tree or existing documentation requirement for PSAs and ESAs. Under this alternative, individuals with disabilities traveling with a service animal would certify that their animal is a service animal on a one-page online certification form. The attestation language would serve the dual purpose of: (1) Educating individuals on what a service animal is and who is permitted to bring a service animal on board; and (2) dissuading individuals from trying to falsely claim that their pet is a service animal. It was also suggested that the attestation be saved in a traveler's profile so that a passenger would not be subject to the certification process repeatedly.

    The advocates and the airlines appeared to support the attestation model as a deterrent to individuals who might seek to falsely claim that their pets are service animals.47 However, the airlines also sought an additional requirement that individuals attest to having been diagnosed by a third party as having a disability. The advocates were not in favor of adding this requirement, arguing that that the term “disability” is a legal term and that all individuals with disabilities may not have necessarily received such a diagnosis, e.g., a blind person does not typically receive a diagnosis that he or she is blind. Discussions eventually reached a stalemate on this point and the ACCESS Committee members voted to discontinue discussions on the service animal issue.

    47 Service Animal-Vote Tally Sheet-3rd Party Documentation, Mandatory Attestation, at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0281.

    Request for Data and Comments

    In this ANPRM, the Department solicits comment on the following issues: (1) Whether psychiatric service animals should be treated similar to other service animals; (2) whether there should be a distinction between emotional support animals and other service animals; (3) whether emotional support animals should be required to travel in pet carriers for the duration of the flight; (4) whether the species of service animals and emotional support animals that airlines are required to transport should be limited; (5) whether the number of service animals/emotional support animals should be limited per passenger; (6) whether an attestation should be required from all service animal and emotional support animal users that their animal has been trained to behave in a public setting; (7) whether service animals and emotional support animals should be harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered; (8) whether there are safety concerns with transporting large service animals and if so, how to address them; (9) whether airlines should be prohibited from requiring a veterinary health form or immunization record from service animal users without an individualized assessment that the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause a significant disruption in the aircraft cabin; and (10) whether U.S. airlines should continue to be held responsible if a passenger traveling under the U.S. carrier's code is only allowed to travel with a service dog on a flight operated by its foreign code share partner.

    The Department is committed to ensuring access for service animal users on aircraft but also recognizes that airlines have a responsibility to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of passengers and employees. The Department requests data on the number of service animals that travel by air annually and the number of behavior-related service animal problems that occur annually. The Department also requests this data separately for emotional support animals if available. The Department is taking this action to ensure that the air transportation system is safe and accessible for everyone.

    1. Psychiatric Service Animals

    Should the DOT amend its service animal regulation so psychiatric service animals are treated the same as other service animals? DOT's current service animal regulation allows airlines to require a user of a psychiatric service animal or emotional support animal to provide airlines with medical documentation and up to 48 hours' advance notice prior to travel. This provision was adopted to address the problem of passengers attempting to pass their pets as ESAs or PSAs so they can travel for free in the aircraft cabin. We seek comments from airlines and other interested persons about their experiences with passengers attempting to pass off pets as service animals, especially as it may relate to PSAs.

    Many PSA users feel that the DOT requirement stigmatizes and discriminates against people with mental health-related disabilities because individuals with physical disabilities or hidden medical disabilities who use service animals do not have to provide the same documentation as a service animal user with a mental health disability. What, if any, experience do airlines have with people attempting to bring pets on board aircraft based on claims that the animals are service animals for disabilities that are not readily apparent other than mental health-related conditions, such as seizure disorders or diabetes?

    Also, PSAs are recognized as a service animal under DOJ's ADA regulation. Under the ADA regulations, the regulated entities may not require documentation as a condition for entry for service animals including PSAs. Should DOT harmonize its service animal regulation under the ACAA with DOJ's ADA service animal regulation and prohibit airlines from requiring PSA users to provide a letter from a licensed mental health professional as a condition for travel? If airlines are no longer allowed to require medical documentation from PSA users, what effective alternative methods are there to prevent fraud? For example, if there is no medical documentation requirement for PSAs but such a requirement remains for ESAs, what would prevent individuals from asserting that their ESA is a PSA? How would airline personnel be able to distinguish between a PSA and an ESA? We invite the public, particularly service animal users, to propose methods of detecting and preventing fraud that they believe are feasible alternatives to the current medical documentation requirements for PSAs. The Department notes that the ACAA is a specialized statute that applies to an environment where many people are confined within a limited space for what may be a prolonged time. Is that sufficient reason for DOT's treatment of PSAs under its ACAA regulation to differ from that of DOJ under its ADA regulation? What are the practical implications of no longer allowing airlines to require medical documentation from PSA users?

    Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind and America's VetDogs (United Service Animal Users) have provided the Department a report regarding the burden on PSA users of the current system's focus on third-party documentation. According to the report submitted by the United Service Animal Users, the average cost to a service animal user to obtain medial documentation is $156.77 and it takes an average of 31 days to obtain such a documentation. United Service Animal Users states that more than 75% of individuals surveyed have either not flown or flown less because of this requirement.48 Do you agree with the data in this report? Explain the basis of your agreement or disagreement. Do the costs to users of PSAs of providing medical documentation outweigh the benefits to airlines of requiring such documentation?

    48 See ACAA Third Party Documentation Requirements: Survey of Psychiatric-Disability-Mitigating Users at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2015-0246-0296.

    Regarding the 48 hours' advance notice requirement for PSAs and ESAs, the Department put in place that requirement to provide airlines sufficient time to review and determine the validity of the medical documentation provided by the passenger. If the Department were no longer to allow airlines to require medical documentation from a PSA user, should the 48 hours' advance notice requirement be eliminated? We solicit comment on whether there is any reason to retain the advance notice requirement for PSAs if there is no longer a documentation requirement for PSAs. Also, what has been the impact of the 48 hours' notice requirement on individuals with psychiatric service animals?

    2. Emotional Support Animals

    The Department is seeking comment on whether it should continue to include ESAs in its definition of a service animal under the ACAA. ESAs are not recognized as service animals in regulations implementing the ADA. Unlike other service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific active function, such as pathfinding, picking up objects, or responding to sounds. This has led some service animal advocacy groups to question their status as service animals and has led to concerns by carriers that permitting ESAs to travel in the cabin has opened the door to abuse by passengers wanting to travel with their pets. Airlines also assert that DOT should exclude emotional support animals from its definition of a service animal under the ACAA to be consistent with the definition of service animal under the ADA.

    Others favored keeping emotional support animals as a separate and distinct category from service animals that are still entitled to protections under the ACAA. For example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which enforces the Fair Housing Act regulations, considers animals that provide emotional support to persons with disabilities to be assistance animals.49 HUD allows housing providers to require a letter from a medical doctor or therapist to demonstrate that the animal is a legitimate assistance animal. The Department seeks comment on whether the amended definition of a service animal should include emotional support animals. Alternatively, the Department seeks comment on whether emotional support animals should be regulated separately and distinctly from service animals? If yes, should DOT allow airlines to require ESA users to provide a letter from a licensed mental health professional stating that the passenger is under his or her care for the condition requiring the ESA and specifying that the passenger needs the animal for an accommodation in air travel or at the passenger's destination? Would such a documentation requirement be stringent enough to prevent individuals who do not have disabilities from skirting the rules by falsely claiming that their pets are ESAs? Suggestions are welcome on approaches to minimize the use of letters from licensed mental health professionals that enable passengers without disabilities to evade airline policies on pets. Are there other types of documents or proof that could be required for carriage of ESAs in the passenger cabin that would be just as effective? Is advance notice of a passenger's intent to travel with an ESA needed to provide the airline time to review documents or other proof? If the documentation needed to fly with an ESA is rigid, would ESA users be less likely to fly and choose other modes of transportation? The Department seeks comment on the practical implications of these options.

    49 See Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, FHEO Notice: FHEO-2013-01 at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=servanimals_ntcfheo2013-01.pdf, (April 25, 2012).

    3. Containment of Emotional Support Animals

    If DOT adopts a rule that continues to require that ESAs be accepted for transport in the aircraft cabin, should DOT allow airlines to require that ESAs be in carriers for the duration of a flight? There appears to be a belief among airlines, a flight attendant association, and others that the increase in misbehavior by service animals on aircraft is largely attributed to the increase in use of emotional support animals. DOT requests any available information to confirm or dispel this belief. Further, because the ADA does not require airports to recognize or allow ESAs as service animals, some airports are requiring that emotional support animals be contained in a pet carrier when traversing through areas of the airport not owned, leased, or controlled by airlines. Considering these concerns, the Department seeks comment on when, if at all, should emotional support animals be contained in a pet carrier. What should be done if the emotional support animal is too large to fit in a pet carrier? Commenters should also consider that recent changes to aircraft configuration and seating, e.g., economy seating vs. seating with extra leg room, means that there may be limitations with respect to containment requirements given the availability of passenger foot space.

    4. Species Limitations

    The Department seeks comment on what, if any, limitations on species should be imposed for service animals/emotional support animals. All major stakeholders—disability rights advocates, airlines, flight attendant associations—appear to agree that limiting the types of species recognized as service animals would provide greater predictability and prevent the erosion of the public's trust which could reduce access for individuals with disabilities. Some prefer that the Department limit coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities. This is consistent with the DOJ definition of service animals under the ADA and the existing ACAA requirement for the type of service animal that foreign air carriers are required to transport. It is also our understanding that service dogs are by far the dominant type of animals used to assist individuals with disabilities. Although accounts of unusual service animals receive wide publicity, cases of unusual service animals, such as turkeys and pigs, being transported on aircraft are not common. As such, would limiting the species of recognized service animals to dogs cause harm to individuals with disabilities? We request data, if available, about the type of service animals that airlines transport year-over-year. The Department also seeks comment on whether any safety-related reasons specific to foreign carriers may preclude the carriage of service animals other than dogs on their flights.

    Others would like for capuchin monkeys and miniature horses to also be recognized as service animals or, in the alternative, provided access on a case-by-case basis. Some individuals with disabilities prefer miniature horses to dogs because of allergies to dogs, religious reasons, or because miniature horses live longer, have excellent vision, and are better at assisting their owners with balance while walking. While DOJ does not recognize miniature horses as service animals, entities covered by the ADA are required to modify their policies to permit miniature horses where reasonable.50 Those who advocate for recognizing a capuchin monkey as a service animal emphasize how essential the capuchin monkeys are in caring for individuals who are paralyzed or otherwise limited in mobility. DOJ, in deciding not to recognize capuchin monkeys in its definition of service animals for purposes of its regulation implementing the ADA noted “their potential for disease transmission and unpredictable aggressive behavior.” 75 FR 56164, 56194 (September 5, 2010). Subject to existing applicable health and safety regulations,51 should the DOT designate capuchin monkeys or miniature horses as service animals under the ACAA? Can the health and safety concerns related to capuchin monkeys be adequately addressed if there was a requirement that these animal travel in pet carriers? The Department also seeks comment on whether any amended service animal rule should designate cats or any other animal as eligible species to be a service animal.

    50 See 28 CFR 36.302.

    51 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) regulation on the importation of nonhuman primates prohibits the importation of a nonhuman primate, which includes capuchin monkeys, into the United States unless the person is a registered importer with the CDC. See 42 CFR71.53.

    If the Department were to adopt a rule that continues to require airlines to accept ESAs for transport, what species of animals should be accepted as ESAs? During the Department's ACCESS Committee meetings, the four species that were mentioned as possibilities are dogs, cats, rabbits, and household birds. Should the Department limit the transport of ESAs to dogs particularly if a service animal is defined to be a dog? What is the impact on passengers with disabilities if an ESA is limited to dogs? Are cats, rabbits, and birds common emotional support animals? Are there any other emotional support animals that are widely used by individuals with disabilities?

    5. Number of Service Animals Per Passenger

    The Department's service animal rule does not limit the number of service animals that one passenger may bring on an aircraft. A single passenger legitimately may have more than one service animal. For example, a person who is deaf and has panic attacks may use one service animal to alert him or her to sounds and another to calm him or her. A person may also need more than one animal for the same task, such as assisting with stability when walking. However, the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, has chosen not to pursue action against carriers that refuse to accept more than three service animals per person. The Department seeks comment on whether to limit the number service animals/emotional support animals that a single passenger may carry onboard a flight. If so, what should the number limit be? The Department also seeks comment on whether justification should be required for a single passenger to be allowed to carry more than one service animal/emotional support animal. If so, what would the parameters of that justification be?

    6. Social Behavior Training

    A4A and others have urged the Department to revise its service animal regulation to address an increase in passengers bringing animals onboard that have not been appropriately trained as service animals.52 The guidance document referenced in the Department's service animal regulation states that an animal that engages in disruptive behavior, such as running around freely in the aircraft or airport, barking, or growling repeatedly at people, biting, and jumping on people, or urinating or defecating in the cabin or gate area, shows that it has not been successfully trained to function as a service animal in a public setting. Airlines are not required to accept for transport animals that do not behave properly in public; on the other hand, the regulation does not specify how an airline can be assured that a service animal has been trained to behave appropriately in a public setting. Airlines also explained of the difficulties their employees experience in observing animal behavior prior to a flight given the lack of staffing and the hectic and time-sensitive nature of air travel. The Department seeks comment on whether it should amend its service animal regulation to allow airlines to require that all service animal users attest that their animal can behave properly in a public setting. The Department also solicits comments on alternatives to a documentation requirement to assess the service animal's behavior.

    52 Comments of Airlines for America Part II—Proposals for Repeal or Amendment of Specific DOT Economic Regulations, DOT, DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2751, (January 31, 2018).

    The ADA prohibits covered entities from requiring documentation, such as proof that the service animal has been trained to behave appropriately as a condition for entry. Is the need for assurance that the service animal can behave properly greater in air travel, as air travel involves people being in a limited space for a prolonged period without the ability to freely leave once onboard the aircraft? Would a provision allowing airlines to require service animal users attest that their animal has been successfully trained to function as a service animal in a public setting reduce the safety risk that passengers, airline staff, and other service animals face from untrained service animals? What is the impact on individuals with disabilities of allowing airlines to require attestation as a condition for permitting an individual to travel with his or her service animal? If such a provision is allowed, should airlines be able to require the attestation in advance of travel? How long in advance of travel? What options exist for preventing any advance documentation requirement from being a barrier to travel for people with disabilities? What is the proper balance between ensuring passengers with disabilities do not encounter barriers to air travel and protecting the health and safety of passengers and airline crew? If DOT allows airlines to require attestation that an animal has received public access training, should the attestation be limited to certain types of service animals? Why or why not?

    7. Control of the Service Animal

    DOT expects that a service animal will be under the control of its user, but DOT's service animal regulation does not contain any leash, tether, or harness requirement. We seek comment on whether tethering or other similar restrictions should be a condition for permitting travel with a service animal. The DOJ's service animal regulation requires that dogs and miniature horses be harnessed, leashed or tethered unless the device interferes with the animal's work or the individual with a disability is unable to hold a tether because of his or her disability. In such cases, the individual with a disability may control his service animal by some other means, such as voice control. Should DOT adopt a similar requirement? Would such a requirement further minimize the likelihood of unwelcome or injurious behavior by a service animal to other passengers or airline staff? What are the advantages or disadvantages in adopting this type of requirement?

    8. Large Service Animals

    Airlines have also expressed safety concerns about large service animals in the cabin, particularly large emotional support animals that have not received disability-mitigation training. Some airlines have urged the Department to consider instituting size and weight restrictions for emotional support animals. The current rule contemplates that a service animal would not be permitted to accompany its user at his or her seat if the animal blocks a space that, per FAA or applicable foreign government safety regulations, must remain unobstructed (e.g., an aisle, access to an emergency exit) and the passenger and animal cannot be moved to another location where such a blockage does not occur. The Department provides guidance in the current rule that if the passenger and animal cannot be moved, carriers should first talk with other passengers to find a seat location where the service animal and its user can be agreeably accommodated (e.g., by finding a passenger who is willing to share foot space with the animal).53

    53 See Guidance Concerning Service Animals, 73 FR 27614, 27660 (May 13, 2008).

    While the Department previously concluded that a service animal's reasonable use of a portion of an adjacent seat's foot space does not deny another passenger effective use of the space for his or her feet and is not an adequate reason for the carrier to refuse to permit the animal to accompany its user at his or her seat, some airlines have indicated that passengers feel pressured to agree to such an arrangement and have later expressed to airline personnel their dissatisfaction at having to share their foot space. The Department seeks comment on whether it should allow airlines to limit the size of emotional support animals or other service animals that travel in the cabin and the implications of such a decision. The Department also seeks comment on whether passengers would find it burdensome to share foot space with service animals and what concerns passengers might have with such an arrangement.

    9. Veterinary Forms

    Recently, a few airlines have begun requiring service animal users to provide information about their animal's health and behavior as a condition for travel. These airlines state that there has been a significant increase in the number of service animal/emotional support animal transportation requests they receive as well as an increase in reported animal incidents of misbehavior, including urination, defecation, and biting. The airlines assert that the health and behavior records of the animals are necessary to protect their customers, employees and other service animals on board aircraft should they be bitten.54 They also contend that producing animal health records would not be burdensome for service animal users as most, if not all, States require animals to be vaccinated. We ask airlines for available data on how many incidents of misbehavior, particularly incidents of biting, airlines have experienced, as well as any data demonstrating an increase in these incidents. What amount of increase in animal misbehavior, if any, is sufficient to warrant a general requirement for a veterinary form regarding the health and behavior of a service animal without an individualized assessment that a service animal or emotional support animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause a significant disruption in the aircraft cabin? We ask passengers with disabilities to provide information regarding what, if any, burdens may exist should they be required to submit veterinary forms related to the health or behavior of their service animal.

    54 An airline may refuse transportation of a service animal if the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others. However, the Department's regulation does not clearly specify whether airlines must make this direct threat assessment on an individualized case-by-case basis. The DOT guidance document referenced in the regulation does suggest that the direct threat should be individualized as it states that the analysis should be based on observable actions

    The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has raised concerns with the Department about airlines' service animal forms, which require veterinarians to attest to the animal's behavior as well as the animal's health. The AVMA explained to the Department that veterinarians cannot guarantee the behavior of an animal particularly in a new environment like an aircraft but can provide information based on their observations of the animal during a physical examination and discussions with the animal's owner regarding whether the animal has been aggressive in the past. AVMA emphasized to the Department that expanding the scope of the veterinary form beyond health information of the animal and behavioral information of the animal based on the veterinarian's observations could lead to refusals by veterinarians to fill out these forms, which would result in more service animals being denied air transportation.

    Through discussions with representatives of many disability rights organizations and a joint letter from ten disability rights organizations, the Department is aware of some of the concerns of service animal users. Psychiatric Service Dog Partners stated that any requirement for health or other forms that applies to PSAs without applying to other service animals is discriminatory. The American Council of the Blind (ACB), the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), and other disability rights organizations pointed out that blind people have used guide dogs safely for decades and should not now have barriers placed on travel. Other disability organizations, such as Paralyzed Veterans of America, emphasized that the airlines should not be requiring such forms unless the airline determines that the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause a significant disruption of cabin service based on an individualized assessment.

    Disability rights advocates also pointed out that the way airlines implement their policies for veterinarian forms may be problematic and negatively impact passengers with disabilities. For example, airline policies that all or certain service animal users provide a veterinarian form related to the health or behavior of their animal 48 hours in advance of scheduled travel means persons with disabilities are unable to fly should there be an emergency. Policies that animals be visually verified at airport check-in would prevent the ability of passengers with disabilities to check-in online like other passengers. Airlines establishing their own policies for travel with a service animal could also mean a patchwork of service animal access requirements, making it difficult for persons with disabilities to know what to expect and how to prepare for travel. The Department seeks comment on whether its service animal regulation should explicitly prohibit airlines from requiring veterinarian forms as a condition for permitting travel with a service animal beyond those specifically allowed by the Department in its regulation unless there is individualized assessment that such a documentation is necessary. If veterinarian forms are not allowed to be required as a condition for travel, what about other types of documentation to ensure that the animal is not a public health risk to humans? Specifically, the Department seeks comment on whether airlines should be allowed to require that service animal users provide evidence that the animal is current on the rabies vaccine as that vaccine is required by all 50 states for dogs and by most states for cats. Finally, should airlines be permitted to require passengers to obtain signed statements from veterinarians regarding the animal's behavior. And if so, what recourse should be available for service animal users if the veterinarian refuses to fill out the behavior form.

    10. Code-Share Flights

    Currently, foreign airlines are only required to transport service dogs, including emotional support and psychiatric service dogs, barring a conflict with a foreign nation's legal requirements. However, a U.S. carrier that code-shares with a foreign carrier could legally be held liable for its foreign codes-share partner's failure to transport other service animal species on code-share flights. While the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings has not taken action against U.S. carriers under these circumstances, the Department seeks comment on whether the rule should explicitly state that U.S. carriers would not be held responsible for its foreign code-share partner's refusal to transport transportation service animals other than dogs.

    Regulatory Notices A. Executive Order 13771, 12866 and 13563 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” Additionally, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. Accordingly, we have asked commenters to answer a variety of questions to elicit practical information about alternative approaches and relevant technical data. These comments will help the Department evaluate whether a proposed rulemaking is needed and appropriate. This action is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This ANPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). This document does not propose any regulation that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments, or (3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

    C. Executive Order 13084

    This ANPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Because none of the topics on which we are seeking comment would significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000-pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR 399.73. If the Department proposes to adopt the regulatory initiative discussed in this ANPRM, it is possible that it may have some impact on some small entities but we do not believe that it would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We invite comment to facilitate our assessment of the potential impact of these initiatives on small entities.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. This ANPRM does not propose any new information collection burdens.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this document.

    G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this ANPRM pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically excludes “[a]ctions relating to consumer protection, including regulations.” The purpose of this rulemaking is to seek public comment on the Department's service animal regulations. The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

    Issued this 9th day of May, 2018, in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.27(n). James C. Owens, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10815 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 23 RIN 3038-AE71 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is seeking comment on proposed amendments to the margin requirements for uncleared swaps for swap dealers (“SD”) and major swap participants (“MSP”) for which there is no prudential regulator (“CFTC Margin Rule”). The Commission is proposing these amendments in light of the rules recently adopted by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) (collectively, the “QFC Rules”) that impose restrictions on certain uncleared swaps and uncleared security-based swaps and other financial contracts. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend the definition of “eligible master netting agreement” in the CFTC Margin Rule to ensure that master netting agreements of firms subject to the CFTC Margin Rule are not excluded from the definition of “eligible master netting agreement” based solely on such agreements' compliance with the QFC Rules. The Commission also proposes that any legacy uncleared swap (i.e., an uncleared swap entered into before the applicable compliance date of the CFTC Margin Rule) that is not now subject to the margin requirements of the CFTC Margin Rule would not become so subject if it is amended solely to comply with the QFC Rules. These proposed amendments are consistent with proposed amendments that the Board, FDIC, OCC, the Farm Credit Administration (“FCA”), and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA” and, together with the Board, FDIC, OCC, and FCA, the “Prudential Regulators”), jointly published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3038-AE71, by any of the following methods:

    CFTC Comments Portal: https://comments.cftc.gov. Select the “Submit Comments” link for this rulemaking and follow the instructions on the Public Comment Form.

    Mail: Send to Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Follow the same instructions as for Mail, above. Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. Submissions through the CFTC Comments Portal are encouraged.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to https://comments.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.1

    1 17 CFR 145.9. Commission regulations referred to herein are found at 17 CFR chapter I.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from https://comments.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Kulkin, Director, (202) 418-5213, [email protected]; Frank Fisanich, Chief Counsel, (202) 418-5949, [email protected]; Katherine Driscoll, Associate Chief Counsel, (202) 418-5544, [email protected]; or Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, (202) 418-5496, [email protected], Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. The Dodd-Frank Act and the CFTC Margin Rule

    On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”).2 Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) 3 to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework designed to reduce risk, to increase transparency, and to promote market integrity within the financial system by, among other things: (1) Providing for the registration and regulation of SDs and MSPs; (2) imposing clearing and trade execution requirements on standardized derivative products; (3) creating recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (4) enhancing the Commission's rulemaking and enforcement authorities with respect to all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the Commission's oversight.

    2 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    3 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

    Section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Act added a new section 4s to the CEA setting forth various requirements for SDs and MSPs. In particular, section 4s(e) of the CEA directs the Commission to adopt rules establishing minimum initial and variation margin requirements on all swaps 4 that are (i) entered into by an SD or MSP for which there is no Prudential Regulator 5 (collectively, “covered swap entities” or “CSEs”) and (ii) not cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization (“uncleared swaps”).6 To offset the greater risk to the SD or MSP 7 and the financial system arising from the use of uncleared swaps, these requirements must (i) help ensure the safety and soundness of the SD or MSP and (ii) be appropriate for the risk associated with the uncleared swaps held as an SD or MSP.8

    4 For the definition of swap, see section 1a(47) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3. 7 U.S.C. 1a(47) and 17 CFR 1.3. It includes, among other things, an interest rate swap, commodity swap, credit default swap, and currency swap.

    5See 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(B). SDs and MSPs for which there is a Prudential Regulator must meet the margin requirements for uncleared swaps established by the applicable Prudential Regulator. 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A). See also 7 U.S.C. 1a(39) (defining the term “Prudential Regulator” to include the Board; the OCC; the FDIC; the FCA; and the FHFA). The definition further specifies the entities for which these agencies act as Prudential Regulators. The Prudential Regulators published final margin requirements in November 2015. See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 80 FR 74840 (Nov. 30, 2015) (“Prudential Margin Rule”).

    6See 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(2)(B)(ii). In Commission regulation 23.151, the Commission further defined this statutory language to mean all swaps that are not cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization or a derivatives clearing organization that the Commission has exempted from registration as provided under the CEA. 17 CFR 23.151.

    7 For the definitions of SD and MSP, see section 1a of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3. 7 U.S.C. 1a and 17 CFR 1.3.

    8 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(3)(A).

    To this end, the Commission promulgated the CFTC Margin Rule in January 2016,9 establishing requirements for a CSE to collect and post initial 10 and variation margin 11 for uncleared swaps, which requirements vary based on the type of counterparty to such swaps.12 These requirements generally apply only to uncleared swaps entered into on or after the compliance date applicable to a particular CSE and its counterparty (“covered swap”).13 An uncleared swap entered into prior to a CSE's applicable compliance date for a particular counterparty (“legacy swap”) is generally not subject to the margin requirements in the CFTC Margin Rule.14

    9 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 81 FR 636 (Jan. 6, 2016). The CFTC Margin Rule, which became effective April 1, 2016, is codified in part 23 of the Commission's regulations. 17 CFR 23.150-23.159, 23.161.

    10 Initial margin, as defined in Commission regulation 23.151 (17 CFR 23.151), is the collateral (calculated as provided by § 23.154 of the Commission's regulations) that is collected or posted in connection with one or more uncleared swaps. Initial margin is intended to secure potential future exposure following default of a counterparty (i.e., adverse changes in the value of an uncleared swap that may arise during the period of time when it is being closed out), while variation margin is provided from one counterparty to the other in consideration of changes that have occurred in the mark-to-market value of the uncleared swap. See CFTC Margin Rule, 81 FR at 664 and 683.

    11 Variation margin, as defined in Commission regulation 23.151 (17 CFR 23.151), is the collateral provided by a party to its counterparty to meet the performance of its obligation under one or more uncleared swaps between the parties as a result of a change in the value of such obligations since the trade was executed or the last time such collateral was provided.

    12See Commission regulations 23.152 and 23.153, 17 CFR 23.152 and 23.153. For example, the CFTC Margin Rule does not require a CSE to collect margin from, or post margin to, a counterparty that is neither a swap entity nor a financial end user (each as defined in 17 CFR 23.151). Pursuant to section 2(e) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 2(e), each counterparty to an uncleared swap must be an eligible contract participant (“ECP”), as defined in section 1a(18) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 1a(18).

    13 Pursuant to Commission regulation 23.161, compliance dates for the CFTC Margin Rule are staggered such that SDs must come into compliance in a series of phases over four years. The first phase affected SDs and their counterparties, each with the largest aggregate outstanding notional amounts of uncleared swaps and certain other financial products. These SDs began complying with both the initial and variation margin requirements of the CFTC Margin Rule on September 1, 2016. The second phase began March 1, 2017, and required SDs to comply with the variation margin requirements of Commission regulation 23.153 with all relevant counterparties not covered in the first phase. See 17 CFR 23.161.

    14See CFTC Margin Rule, 81 FR at 651 and Commission regulation 23.161. 17 CFR 23.161.

    To the extent that more than one uncleared swap is executed between a CSE and its covered counterparty, the CFTC Margin Rule permits the netting of required margin amounts of each swap under certain circumstances.15 In particular, the CFTC Margin Rule, subject to certain limitations, permits a CSE to calculate initial margin and variation margin, respectively, on an aggregate net basis across uncleared swaps that are executed under the same eligible master netting agreement (“EMNA”).16 Moreover, the CFTC Margin Rule permits swap counterparties to identify one or more separate netting portfolios (i.e., a specified group of uncleared swaps the margin obligations of which will be netted only against each other) under the same EMNA, including having separate netting portfolios for covered swaps and legacy swaps.17 A netting portfolio that contains only legacy swaps is not subject to the initial and variation margin requirements set out in the CFTC Margin Rule.18 However, if a netting portfolio contains any covered swaps, the entire netting portfolio (including all legacy swaps) is subject to such requirements.19

    15See CFTC Margin Rule, 81 FR at 651 and Commission regulations 23.152(c) and 23.153(d). 17 CFR 23.152(c) and 23.153(d).

    16Id. The term EMNA is defined in Commission regulation 23.151. 17 CFR 23.151. Generally, an EMNA creates a single legal obligation for all individual transactions covered by the agreement upon an event of default following certain specified permitted stays. For example, an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) form Master Agreement may be an EMNA, if it meets the specified requirements in the EMNA definition.

    17See CFTC Margin Rule, 81 FR at 651 and Commission regulations 23.152(c)(2)(ii) and 23.153(d)(2)(ii). 17 CFR 23.152(c)(2)(ii) and 23.153(d)(2)(ii).

    18Id.

    19Id.

    A legacy swap may lose its legacy treatment under the CFTC Margin Rule, causing it to become a covered swap and causing any netting portfolio in which it is included to be subject to the requirements of the CFTC Margin Rule. For reasons discussed in the CFTC Margin Rule, the Commission elected not to extend the meaning of legacy swaps to include (1) legacy swaps that are amended in a material or nonmaterial manner; (2) novations of legacy swaps; and (3) new swaps that result from portfolio compression of legacy swaps.20 Therefore, and as relevant here, a legacy swap that is amended after the applicable compliance date may become a covered swap subject to the initial and variation margin requirements in the CFTC Margin Rule, and netting portfolios that were intended to contain only legacy swaps and, thus, not be subject to the CFTC Margin Rule may become so subject.

    20See CFTC Margin Rule, 81 FR at 675. The Commission notes that certain limited relief has been given from this standard. See CFTC Staff Letter No. 17-52 (Oct. 27. 2017), available at http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrlettergeneral/documents/letter/17-52.pdf.

    B. The QFC Rules

    In late 2017, as part of the broader regulatory reform effort following the financial crisis to promote U.S. financial stability and increase the resolvability and resiliency of U.S. global systemically important banking institutions (“U.S. GSIBs”) 21 and the U.S. operations of foreign global systemically important banking institutions (together with U.S. GSIBS, “GSIBs”), the Board, FDIC, and OCC adopted the QFC Rules. The QFC Rules establish restrictions on and requirements for uncleared qualified financial contracts 22 (collectively, “Covered QFCs”) of GSIBs, the subsidiaries of U.S. GSIBs, and certain other very large OCC-supervised national banks and Federal savings associations (collectively, “Covered QFC Entities”).23 They are designed to help ensure that a failed company's passage through a resolution proceeding—such as bankruptcy or the special resolution process created by the Dodd-Frank Act—would be more orderly, thereby helping to mitigate destabilizing effects on the rest of the financial system.24 To help achieve this goal, the QFC Rules respond in two ways.25

    21See 12 CFR 217.402 (defining global systemically important banking institution).

    22 Qualified financial contract (“QFC”) is defined in section 210(c)(8)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act to mean any securities contract, commodity contract, forward contract, repurchase agreement, swap agreement, and any similar agreement that the FDIC determines by regulation, resolution, or order to be a qualified financial contract. 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D).

    23See, e.g., 12 CFR 252.82(c) (defining Covered QFC). See also 82 FR 42882 (Sep. 12, 2017) (for the Board's QFC Rule). See also 82 FR 50228 (Oct. 30, 2017) (for FDIC's QFC Rule). See also 82 FR 56630 (Nov. 29, 2017) (for the OCC's QFC Rule). The effective date of the Board's QFC Rule is November 13, 2017, and the effective date for the OCC's QFC Rule and the substance of the FDIC's QFC Rule is January 1, 2018. The QFC Rules include a phased-in conformance period for a Covered QFC Entity, beginning on January 1, 2019 and ending on January 1, 2020, that varies depending upon the counterparty type of the Covered QFC Entity. See, e.g., 12 CFR 252.82(f).

    24See, e.g., Board's QFC Rule at 42883. In particular, the QFC Rules seek to facilitate the orderly resolution of a failed GSIB by limiting the ability of the firm's Covered QFC counterparties to terminate such contracts immediately upon entry of the GSIB or one of its affiliates into resolution. Given the large volume of QFCs to which covered entities are a party, the exercise of default rights en masse as a result of the failure or significant distress of a covered entity could lead to failure and a disorderly resolution if the failed firm were forced to sell off assets, which could spread contagion by increasing volatility and lowering the value of similar assets held by other firms, or to withdraw liquidity that it had provided to other firms.

    25Id.

    First, the QFC Rules generally require the Covered QFCs of Covered QFC Entities to contain contractual provisions explicitly providing that any default rights or restrictions on the transfer of the Covered QFC are limited to the same extent as they would be pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDI Act”) 26 and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, thereby reducing the risk that those regimes would be challenged by a court in a foreign jurisdiction.27

    26 12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.

    27See, e.g., Board's QFC Rule at 42883 and 42890 and 12 CFR 252.83(b).

    Second, the QFC Rules generally prohibit Covered QFCs from allowing counterparties to Covered QFC Entities to exercise default rights related, directly or indirectly, to the entry into resolution of an affiliate of the Covered QFC Entity (“cross-default rights”).28 This is to ensure that counterparties of solvent affiliates of a failed entity cannot terminate their contracts with the solvent affiliate based solely on that failure.29

    28See, e.g., Board's QFC Rule at 42883 and 12 CFR 252.84(b). Covered QFC Entities are similarly generally prohibited from entering into Covered QFCs that would restrict the transfer of a credit enhancement supporting the Covered QFC from the Covered QFC Entity's affiliate to a transferee upon the entry into resolution of the affiliate. See, e.g., Board's QFC Rule at 42890 and 12 CFR 252.84(b)(2).

    29Id.

    Covered QFC Entities are required to enter into amendments to certain pre-existing Covered QFCs to explicitly provide for these requirements and to ensure that Covered QFCs entered into after the applicable compliance date for the rule explicitly provide for the same.30

    30See, e.g., 12 CFR 252.82(a) and (c). The QFC Rules require a Covered QFC Entity to conform Covered QFCs (i) entered into, executed, or to which it otherwise becomes a party on or after January 1, 2019 or (ii) entered into, executed, or to which it otherwise became a party before January 1, 2019, if the Covered QFC Entity or any affiliate that is a Covered QFC Entity also enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to a new Covered QFC with the counterparty to the pre-existing Covered QFC or a consolidated affiliate of the counterparty on or after January 1, 2019.

    II. Proposed Changes to the CFTC Margin Rule (“Proposal”) A. Proposed Amendment to the Definition of EMNA in Commission Regulation 23.151

    As noted above, the current definition of EMNA in Commission regulation 23.151 allows for certain specified permissible stays of default rights of the CSE. Specifically, consistent with the QFC Rules, the current definition provides that such rights may be stayed pursuant to a special resolution regime such as Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDI Act, and substantially similar foreign resolution regimes.31 However, the current EMNA definition does not explicitly recognize certain restrictions on the exercise of a CSE's cross-default rights required under the QFC Rules.32 Therefore, a pre-existing EMNA that is amended in order to become compliant with the QFC Rules or a new master netting agreement that conforms to the QFC Rules will not meet the current definition of EMNA. A CSE that is a counterparty under such a master netting agreement—one that does not meet the definition of EMNA—would be required to measure its exposures from covered swaps on a gross basis, rather than aggregate net basis, for purposes of the CFTC Margin Rule.33

    31 17 CFR 23.151.

    32Id.

    33See CFTC Margin Rule, 81 FR at 651 and Commission regulations 23.152(c) and 23.153(d). 17 CFR 23.152(c) and 23.153(d).

    The Commission wants to protect market participants from being disadvantaged due to their master netting agreements not meeting the requirements of an EMNA solely as a result of such agreements' compliance with the QFC Rules. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to add a new paragraph (2)(ii) to the definition of “eligible master netting agreement” in Commission regulation 23.151 and make other minor related changes to that definition such that a master netting agreement may be an EMNA even though the agreement limits the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty to the extent necessary for the counterparty to comply with the requirements of part 47, subpart I of part 252, or part 382 of title 12, as applicable. These enumerated provisions contain the relevant requirements that have been added by the QFC Rules.

    B. Proposed Amendment to Commission Regulation 23.161, Compliance Dates

    Covered QFC Entities must conform to the requirements of the QFC Rules for Covered QFCs entered into on or after January 1, 2019 and, in some instances, Covered QFCs entered into before that date.34 To do so, a Covered QFC Entity may need to amend the contractual provisions of its pre-existing Covered QFCs.35 Legacy swaps that are so amended by a Covered QFC Entity and its counterparty would become covered swaps under the current CFTC Margin Rule.36 Therefore, in order not to disadvantage market participants who are parties to legacy swaps that are required to be amended to comply with the QFC Rules, the Commission proposes to amend the CFTC Margin Rule such that a legacy swap will not be a covered swap under the CFTC Margin Rule if it is amended solely to conform to the QFC Rules. That is, the Commission proposes to add a new paragraph (d) to the end of Commission regulation 23.161, as shown in the proposed rule text in this document.

    34See supra, n.30.

    35Id.

    36See supra, n.20. Note, therefore, that such amendment would affect all parties to the legacy swap, not only the Covered QFC Entity subject to the QFC Rules.

    This proposed addition is intended to provide certainty to a CSE and its counterparties about the treatment of legacy swaps and any applicable netting arrangements in light of the QFC Rules. However, if, in addition to amendments required to comply with the QFC Rules, the parties enter into any other amendments, the amended legacy swap will be a covered swap in accordance with the application of the existing CFTC Margin Rule.

    C. Consistent With the Proposed Amendments to the Prudential Margin Rule

    The amendments to the CFTC Margin Rule described above are consistent with proposed amendments to the Prudential Margin Rule that the Prudential Regulators jointly published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2018.37 Proposing amendments to the CFTC Margin Rule that are consistent with those proposed by the Prudential Regulators furthers the Commission's efforts to harmonize its margin regime with the Prudential Regulators' margin regime and is responsive to suggestions received as part of the Commission's Project KISS initiative.38

    37 Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities; Proposed Rule, 83 FR 7413 (Feb. 21, 2018).

    38See Project KISS Initiatives, available at https://comments.cftc.gov/KISS/KissInitiative.aspx. The Commission received requests to coordinate revisions to the CFTC Margin Rule with the Prudential Regulators. See comments from Credit Suisse (“CS”), the Financial Services Roundtable (“FSR”), ISDA, the Managed Funds Association (“MFA”), and SIFMA Global Foreign Exchange Division (“GFMA”). GFMA requested that the Commission coordinate with the Prudential Regulators on proposing or making any changes to the CFTC Margin Rule to ensure harmonization and consistency across the respective rule sets. In addition, CS, FSR, ISDA, and MFA, as well as GFMA requested that the Commission make certain specific changes to the CFTC Margin Rule in coordination with the Prudential Regulators relating to, for example, initial margin calculations and requirements, margin settlement timeframes, netting product sets, inter-affiliate margin exemptions, and cross-border margin issues. Project KISS suggestions are available at https://comments.cftc.gov/KISS/KissInitiative.aspx.

    III. Related Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) 39 imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies, including the Commission, in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information, as defined by the PRA. The Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. This Proposal contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

    39 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires that agencies consider whether the regulations they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.40 This Proposal only affects certain SDs and MSPs that are subject to the QFC Rules and their covered counterparties, all of which are required to be ECPs.41 The Commission has previously determined that SDs, MSPs, and ECPs are not small entities for purposes of the RFA.42 Therefore, the Commission believes that this Proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the RFA.

    40 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    41See supra, n.12.

    42See Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 77 FR 2613, 2620 (Jan. 19, 2012) (SDs and MSPs) and Opting Out of Segregation, 66 FR 20740, 20743 (April 25, 2001) (ECPs).

    Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this Proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission invites comment on the impact of this Proposal on small entities.

    C. Cost-Benefit Considerations

    Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA. Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of the following five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission considers the costs and benefits resulting from its discretionary determinations with respect to the section 15(a) considerations.

    This Proposal prevents certain CSEs and their counterparties from being disadvantaged because their master netting agreements do not satisfy the definition of an EMNA, solely because such agreements' comply with the QFC Rules or because such agreements would have to be amended to achieve compliance. It revises the definition of EMNA such that a master netting agreement that meets the requirements of the QFC Rules may be an EMNA and provides that an amendment to a legacy swap solely to conform to the QFC Rules will not cause that swap to be a covered swap under the CFTC Margin Rule.

    The baseline against which the benefits and costs associated with this Proposal is compared is the uncleared swaps markets as they exist today, with the QFC Rules in effect.43 With this as the baseline for this Proposal, the following are the benefits and costs of this Proposal.

    43 Although, as described above, the QFC Rules will be gradually phased in, for purposes of the cost benefit considerations, we assume that the affected CSEs are in compliance with the QFC Rules.

    1. Benefits

    As described above, this Proposal will allow parties whose master netting agreements satisfy the proposed revised definition of EMNA to continue to calculate initial margin and variation margin, respectively, on an aggregate net basis across uncleared swaps that are executed under that EMNA. Otherwise, a CSE that is a counterparty under a master netting agreement that complies with the QFC Rules and, thus, does not satisfy the current definition of EMNA, would be required to measure its exposures from covered swaps on a gross basis for purposes of the CFTC Margin Rule. In addition, this Proposal allows legacy swaps to maintain their legacy status, notwithstanding that they are amended to comply with the QFC Rules. Otherwise, such swaps would become covered swaps subject to initial and variation margin requirements under the CFTC Margin Rule. This Proposal provides certainty to CSEs and their counterparties about the treatment of legacy swaps and any applicable netting arrangements in light of the QFC Rules.

    2. Costs

    Because this Proposal (i) will solely expand the definition of EMNA to potentially include those master netting agreements that meet the requirements of the QFC Rules and allow the amendment of legacy swaps solely to conform to the QFC Rules without causing such swaps to become covered swaps and (ii) does not require market participants to take any action to benefit from these changes, the Commission believes that this Proposal will not impose any additional costs on market participants.

    3. Section 15(a) Considerations

    In light of the foregoing, the CFTC has evaluated the costs and benefits of this Proposal pursuant to the five considerations identified in section 15(a) of the CEA as follows:

    (a) Protection of Market Participants and the Public

    As noted above, this Proposal will protect market participants by allowing them to comply with the QFC Rules without being disadvantaged under the CFTC Margin Rule. This Proposal will allow market participants to hedge more, because without this Proposal, posting gross margin would be more costly to transact and thus likely reduce the amount of hedging for market participants.

    (b) Efficiency, Competitiveness, and Financial Integrity of Markets

    This Proposal will make the uncleared swap markets more efficient by not requiring the payment of gross margin under EMNAs that are amended pursuant to the QFC Rules. Absent this Proposal, market participants that are required to amend their EMNAs to comply with the QFC Rules and, thereafter, required to measure their exposure on a gross basis and to post margin on their legacy swaps, would be placed at a competitive disadvantage as compared to those market participants that are not so required to amend their EMNAs. Therefore, this Proposal may increase the competitiveness of the uncleared swaps markets.

    (c) Price Discovery

    This Proposal prevents the payment of gross margin, which would result in additional costs to swaps transactions. This Proposal could potentially reduce the cost to transact these swaps, and thus might lead to more trading, which could potentially improve liquidity and benefit price discovery.

    (d) Sound Risk Management

    This Proposal prevents the payment of gross margin, which does not reflect true economic counterparty credit risk for swap portfolios transacted with counterparties. Therefore, this Proposal supports sound risk management.

    (e) Other Public Interest Considerations

    The Commission has not identified an impact on other public interest considerations as a result of this Proposal.

    4. Request for Comments on Cost-Benefit Considerations

    The Commission invites public comment on its cost-benefit considerations, including the section 15(a) factors described above. Commenters are also invited to submit any data or other information that they may have quantifying or qualifying the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments with their comment letters. In particular, the Commission seeks specific comment on the following:

    (a) Has the Commission accurately identified the benefits of this Proposal? Are there other benefits to the Commission, market participants, and/or the public that may result from the adoption of this Proposal that the Commission should consider? Please provide specific examples and explanations of any such benefits.

    (b) Has the Commission accurately identified the costs of this Proposal? Are there additional costs to the Commission, market participants, and/or the public that may result from the adoption of this Proposal that the Commission should consider? Please provide specific examples and explanations of any such costs.

    (c) Does this Proposal impact the section 15(a) factors in any way that is not described above? Please provide specific examples and explanations of any such impact.

    D. Antitrust Laws

    Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 4(c) or 4c(b) of the CEA), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of a contract market or registered futures association established pursuant to section 17 of the CEA.44

    44 7 U.S.C. 19(b).

    The Commission believes that the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws is generally to protect competition. The Commission requests comment on whether this Proposal implicates any other specific public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws.

    The Commission has considered this Proposal to determine whether it is anticompetitive and has preliminarily identified no anticompetitive effects. The Commission requests comment on whether this Proposal is anticompetitive and, if it is, what the anticompetitive effects are.

    Because the Commission has preliminarily determined that this Proposal is not anticompetitive and has no anticompetitive effects, the Commission has not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA. The Commission requests comment on whether there are less anticompetitive means of achieving the relevant purposes of the CEA that would otherwise be served by adopting this Proposal.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 23

    Capital and margin requirements, Major swap participants, Swap dealers, Swaps.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR part 23 as follows:

    PART 23—SWAP DEALERS AND MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS 1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1,6c, 6p, 6r, 6s, 6t, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21.

    Section 23.160 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 2(i); Sec. 721(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1641 (2010).

    2. In § 23.151, revise paragraph (2) of the definition of Eligible master netting agreement to read as follows:
    § 23.151 Definitions applicable to margin requirements.

    Eligible master netting agreement * * *

    (2) The agreement provides the covered swap entity the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, conservatorship, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case:

    (i) Any exercise of rights under the agreement will not be stayed or avoided under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:

    (A) In receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.), Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5381 et seq.), the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4617), or the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2183 and 2279cc), or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar to the U.S. laws referenced in this paragraph (2)(i)(A) in order to facilitate the orderly resolution of the defaulting counterparty; or

    (B) Where the agreement is subject by its terms to, or incorporates, any of the laws referenced in paragraph (2)(i)(A) of this definition; and

    (ii) The agreement may limit the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty to the extent necessary for the counterparty to comply with the requirements of 12 CFR part 47; 12 CFR part 252, subpart I; or 12 CFR part 382, as applicable;

    3. In § 23.161, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 23.161 Compliance dates.

    (d) For purposes of determining whether an uncleared swap was entered into prior to the applicable compliance date under this section, a covered swap entity may disregard amendments to the uncleared swap that were entered into solely to comply with the requirements of 12 CFR part 47; 12 CFR part 252, subpart I; or 12 CFR part 382, as applicable.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2018, by the Commission. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix to Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2018-10995 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 240, 249, 275 and 279 [Release No. 34-83063; IA-4888; File No. S7-08-18] RIN 3235-AL27 Form CRS Relationship Summary; Amendments to Form ADV; Required Disclosures in Retail Communications and Restrictions on the Use of Certain Names or Titles Correction

    In proposed rule document 2018-08583 beginning on page 21416 in the issue of Wednesday, May 9, 2018, make the following corrections:

    1. On page 21553, in the second column, line one “[Form ADV, Part 3:]1 Instructions to Form CRS” should read “APPENDIX B [Form ADV, Part 3:]1 Instructions to Form CRS”

    2. On page 21570, in the first column, line one, under the table “Your Relationship with Your Financial Professional: Feedback on the Relationship Summary” should read “APPENDIX F Your Relationship with Your Financial Professional: Feedback on the Relationship Summary

    [FR Doc. C1-2018-08583 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 8 and 141 [Docket No. RM18-14-000] Elimination of Form 80 and Revision of Regulations on Recreational Opportunities and Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing to amend regulations to eliminate the Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, designated as FERC Form No. 80 (Form 80). Form 80 solicits information on the use and development of recreation facilities at hydropower projects licensed by the Commission under the Federal Power Act. In addition, the Commission proposes to further revise its regulations related to recreational use and development at licensed projects in order to modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees' compliance efforts.

    DATES:

    Comments are due July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:

    • Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jon Cofrancesco (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8951, [email protected] Tara DiJohn (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8671, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents Paragraph No. I. Background 2 II. Proposed Rule 4 A. Removal of Section 8.11—Information Respecting Use and Development of Public Recreational Opportunities 4 1. Background 4 2. Proposed Elimination of Form 80 5 3. Implications for Existing Licenses 9 4. Removal of Section 141.14—Form No. 80, Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report 13 B. Amendments of 18 CFR 8.1, and 8.2 14 1. Section 8.1—Publication of License Conditions Relating to Recreation 15 2. Section 8.2—Posting of Project Lands as to Recreation Use and Availability of Information 17 III. Regulatory Requirements 20 A. Information Collection Statement 20 B. Environmental Analysis 36 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 37 D. Comment Procedures 42 E. Document Availability 46

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to remove section 8.11 of its regulations, eliminating the requirement for licensees to file a Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, designated as FERC Form No. 80 (Form 80). Form 80 solicits information on the use and development of recreation facilities at hydropower projects licensed by the Commission under the Federal Power Act (FPA). In addition, the Commission proposes to revise sections 8.1 and 8.2 of its regulations to modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees' compliance efforts.

    I. Background

    2. Section 10(a)(1) of the FPA requires the Commission to ensure that any licensed project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving and developing a waterway for a variety of beneficial public uses, including recreational use.1 Although section 10(a) of the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920 2 did not refer specifically to recreation, in 1935 when the Federal Water Power Act was re-enacted as Part I of the Federal Power Act,3 the words `including recreational purposes' were added to section 10(a) to make clear that recreation considerations were to be included in comprehensive development of the nation's water resources. Pursuant to this obligation, the Commission required licensees to allow public access to project lands and waters for recreational use and began to include standard conditions in licenses for the provision of such recreational facilities. In the 1960s, the Commission developed specific policies and practices to ensure that licensees provided reasonable recreational opportunities and notice of such opportunities to the public. In 1963, the Commission began requiring recreational use plans for the full public utilization of project waters and lands for recreation,4 and in 1965 amended its regulations by adding Part 8, entitled “Recreation Opportunities and Development at Licensed Projects,” in order to require licensees to widely publicize to the general public recreational opportunities at individual projects.5 Order 313, issued on December 27, 1965, amended the Commission's general policy regulations (18 CFR part 2) by adding section 2.7 to clarify that licensees whose projects include land and water resources with outdoor recreational potential have a responsibility for the development of those resources in accordance with area needs, to the extent that such development is not inconsistent with the primary purpose of the project.6 In 1966, the Commission further amended Part 8 of its regulations to require licensees to file Form 80, a report that provides an inventory of the use and development of recreational facilities at each development contained within a licensed project.7

    1See 16 U.S.C. 803(a)(1) (2012).

    2 41 Stat. 1063.

    3 49 Stat. 838, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    4 Exhibit R, 18 CFR 4.41, Order 260-A, on April 18, 1963, 29 FPC 777.

    5Publicizing License Conditions Relating to Recreational Opportunities at Hydroelectric Projects, Order No. 299, 33 F.P.C. 1131 (1965) (Order 299). Section 1 of Part 8 requires licensees to publicize license conditions related to recreation; section 2 requires licensees to post, at points of public access, signs providing recreation use information and requires licensees to make such information available for inspection; and section 3 requires licensees to permit use without discrimination. 18 CFR 8.1-8.3.

    6Recreational Development at Licensed Projects, Order No. 313, 34 F.P.C. 1546, 1548 (1965) (Order 313).

    7Inventory of Recreation Facilities at Licensed Hydroelectric Projects, Order No. 330, 36 F.P.C. 1030 (1966) (Order 330). Section 8.11 requires the filing of information on the use and development of public recreation opportunities. 18 CFR 8.11 (2017).

    3. Over the years, the Commission has continued to revise its regulations to reflect the Commission's current public recreation policies and practices. Once again, in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission proposes to modify certain recreation-related regulations in order to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements, modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees' compliance efforts. The regulations proposed for modification are discussed below.

    II. Proposed Rule A. Removal of Section 8.11—Information Respecting Use and Development of Public Recreational Opportunities 1. Background

    4. Section 8.11 requires licensees to file Form 80, a report on the use and development of recreational facilities at each development contained within a licensed project, on April 1 of every sixth year, documenting data compiled during the previous calendar year.8 For each project development,9 the Form 80 requires licensees to report the number of visits (i.e., recreation days),10 the use capacity of each type of public recreation facility, and the total annual cost to develop, operate, and maintain the public recreation facilities. In order to complete the Form 80, licensees must collect data on recreation use, facilities, and capacity for a 12-month period. Licensees may request an exemption from the Form 80 requirement if they demonstrate that a project development has little or no existing or potential recreational use (i.e., less than 100 recreation days per year).11

    8Modification of Hydropower Procedural Regulations, Including the Deletion of Certain Outdated or Non-Essential Regulations, Order No. 540, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,944 (1992). Order 330 originally required licensees to file a Form 80 every two years. 36 F.P.C. 1030, 1031. However, the Commission subsequently amended section 8.11 to revise the form and reduce the filing frequency. See Revision of Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report: FERC Form No. 80, Order No. 179, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,295 (1981) (consolidating, simplifying, and reducing the size of the Form 80 by approximately 60 percent); Deletion of a 1987 Filing Requirement for FERC Form No. 80, Order No. 419, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 60,640 (1985) (committing to re-evaluate the need for Form 80, and take further action if Form 80 is found unnecessary or in need of modification).

    9 Most licensed projects have only one project development. However, licensees of projects with more than one development must file a separate Form 80 report for each development.

    10 The Form 80 defines a recreation day as each visit by a person to a development for recreational purposes during any portion of a 24-hour period.

    11 18 CFR 8.11(c) (2017).

    2. Proposed Elimination of Form 80

    5. In 1965, when use of the Form 80 was first adopted, most licensed projects did not have individual recreation plans or specific recreation development requirements set out in the license. However, today many licensed projects with significant recreation opportunities have project-specific license conditions that require licensees to prepare and implement a recreation plan, conduct recreation monitoring, and/or file periodic updates to an approved recreation plan.12 Such project-specific license requirements are tailored to the recreation opportunities provided by the individual project, allowing licensees and Commission staff to better evaluate and address public recreation needs over time. Consequently, the information contained in the Form 80 may be duplicative and of limited use to Commission staff when compared to the more detailed and descriptive recreation information submitted to the Commission in response to project-specific recreation requirements.

    12 In addition, between fiscal years 2016 and 2030, over 500 projects will begin the relicensing process. During relicensing, the Commission's Division of Hydropower Licensing will evaluate the need for, and may require, project-specific recreation monitoring in new licenses on a case-by-case basis.

    6. Licensees for projects with limited recreation opportunities are also required to file Form 80 reports every six years, unless exempted from this requirement. Although these projects may not have approved recreation plans or recreation-related monitoring requirements given the limited recreation opportunities at such projects, the periodic submission of Form 80 reports does not provide an effective means to determine whether these projects are meeting public recreation needs. Commission staff utilizes other tools to evaluate recreation development and use at the licensed projects with minimal recreation opportunities, such as periodic project inspections and investigation of non-compliance allegations (e.g., any recreation-related inquiries or complaints submitted by resource agencies, recreation users, or local residents).

    7. Moreover, Commission staff reports limited use of Form 80 data and cites concerns about the data's validity and lack of specificity. Commission staff generally views the Form 80 as a secondary source, using the reported data to confirm existing recreation data or to identify additional information to be requested from the licensee. Similarly, Commission staff experience indicates that resource agencies and outside entities often view Form 80 data as unreliable or insufficient to accurately document recreation use and facility capacity. Finally, advances in technology since the advent of the Form 80 (e.g., websites, Google Earth, and the Commission's eLibrary system) allow interested parties and the general public to more effectively obtain information about a project's recreational opportunities and any recreation-related license requirements.

    8. For these reasons, the Commission proposes to remove section 8.11 from its regulations, eliminating the requirement for licensees to file the Form 80. This proposed change would result in reduced burden for licensees and Commission staff alike. If eliminated, licensees would no longer be required to collect and validate Form 80 data and Commission staff resources would not be allocated to performing Form 80-related responsibilities (e.g., responding to licensee inquiries; performing database maintenance; addressing non-compliance matters related to overdue, incomplete, or inaccurate Form 80 filings; and acting on exemption requests).

    3. Implications for Existing Licenses

    9. With the removal of section 8.11, existing licensees would no longer be required to collect, validate, and submit recreational data through Form 80. Nonetheless, the Commission will expect licensees to monitor the recreational resources provided by their projects in order to fulfill any project-specific license requirements and the general obligations set forth in section 2.7 of the Commission's regulations. Among other things, section 2.7 requires licensees to develop suitable recreation facilities, provide adequate public access, and determine public recreation needs.13 Implicit in these obligations is the expectation that a licensee will ensure that recreation development is operated and maintained in a manner that is safe for public use, responsive to public recreation needs, and consistent with project purposes throughout the license term.

    13 18 CFR 2.7(a)-(c) (2017).

    10. The Commission expects that licensees will continue to monitor project recreation resources in a manner appropriate for the type, size, and quantity of public recreation opportunities provided by the project. Projects with moderate to significant public recreation opportunities typically require a greater level of monitoring and oversight than projects that have little to no recreation opportunities. Generally, licensees of projects with significant recreational resources must comply with one, or several, project-specific license articles requiring the licensee to: Develop certain recreation facilities, prepare and implement a recreation management plan, submit recreation reports, or conduct recreational use monitoring. A licensee's continued compliance with such project-specific conditions would satisfy this general monitoring obligation.14

    14 If necessary, the Commission may require additional recreation development or measures (e.g., recreation use monitoring) during the license term. Licenses for major projects (i.e., projects with an installed capacity that exceeds 1.5 megawatts) include a standard condition (Article 17) that reserves authority for the Commission to require a licensee to undertake additional recreation development or measures during the license term based on its own determination or in response to a request from Federal or State fish and wildlife agencies, after opportunity for notice and hearing.

    11. Licensed projects with little to no recreation, including projects that were previously exempted from the Form 80 reporting requirement pursuant to section 8.11(c),15 are not expected to implement any new or additional recreation monitoring efforts, but should continue to comply with any project-specific license conditions related to public recreation.

    15 18 CFR 8.11(c) (2017).

    12. In the case where an existing license contains a condition, or a recreation plan contains a provision, that ties a future filing or other action to the Form 80 reporting schedule (i.e., April 1, 2021, and every six years thereafter), licensees would still be required to timely file any recreation-related plan, report, update, or other specific information required by an existing license condition.16 Despite the proposed elimination of the Form 80 reporting requirement, licensees would still be required to file the required recreation submittal by April 1, 2021, and every six years thereafter, unless otherwise specified in the license condition. A licensee may file an application to amend any license condition or recreation plan that ties the timing of future recreation filings to the Form 80 reporting schedule. Such amendment applications would be considered by the Commission on a case-by-case basis as a separate project-specific proceeding.

    16 For example, certain license articles may require a licensee to: (1) File a recreation use monitoring report in conjunction with the Form 80 report; (2) file documentation showing consultation on recreation use levels in conjunction with the Form 80 report; (3) conduct recreation use monitoring every six years in conjunction with the Form 80 report; (4) file a report that assesses whether a recreation plan update is needed every six years in conjunction with the Form 80; and/or (5) file a report describing whether public recreation needs are being met by the project every six years in conjunction with the Form 80.

    4. Removal of Section 141.14—Form No. 80, Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report

    13. Added to the Commission's regulations alongside the Form 80 requirement in 1966,17 section 141.14 approved licensee use of Form 80 in the manner prescribed in section 8.11 of our regulations.18 Concurrently with the proposed removal of section 8.11, the Commission proposes to remove section 141.14 of its regulations.

    17 Order 330, 36 F.P.C. 1030.

    18 18 CFR 141.14 (2017).

    B. Amendments of 18 CFR 8.1, and 8.2

    14. In addition to the elimination of section 8.11, the Commission proposes to amend sections 8.1 and 8.2 of its regulations to modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees' compliance efforts.

    1. Section 8.1—Publication of License Conditions Relating to Recreation

    15. Section 8.1 directs licensees to publicize information about the availability of projects lands and waters for recreational purposes, and any recreation-related license conditions.19 Section 8.1 requires licensees, at a minimum, to publish notice in a local newspaper once each week for four weeks of any recreation-related license conditions that the Commission may designate in an order issuing or amending a license.20

    19 18 CFR 8.1 (2017).

    20See id.

    16. In addition to publishing notice in the local newspaper, the Commission proposes to require licensees with project websites to also post notice of recreation-related license conditions on its website. This requirement would only apply to a licensee that already has an existing project website, or decides to develop a project website in the future. This proposed change will ensure that the public is informed of recreational opportunities and recreation-related license conditions regardless of whether members of the public rely on a newspaper or the internet as their main source of news and information.

    2. Section 8.2—Posting of Project Lands as to Recreation Use and Availability of Information

    17. Section 8.2(a) requires the licensee to post at each public access point a visible sign that identifies: The project name, project owner, project number, directions to project areas available for public recreation, permissible times and activities, and other regulations regarding recreation use. Section 8.2(a) also requires licensees to post visible notice that project recreation facilities are open to all members of the public without discrimination. Section 8.2(b) directs the licensee to make available for inspection at its local offices the Commission-approved recreation plan and the entire license order indexed for easy reference to the recreation-related license conditions designated for publication in accordance with section 8.1 of the Commission's regulations. As the Commission explained in Order 299, the rationale behind the types of public notice required by sections 8.1 and 8.2 is two-fold: (i) It puts prospective purchasers of land in the project vicinity on notice of the project's public access and recreation purposes; and (ii) it informs the general public of the location and terms of use of the project's recreation facilities.21

    21 Order 299, 33 F.P.C. 1131.

    18. The proposed amendments to section 8.2 clarify project signage requirements and reflect modern public dissemination methods, such as website publication. The Commission proposes to revise section 8.2(a) to streamline the information licensees must include on recreation signage at each public access point. The proposed revisions would require signs to, at a minimum, identify: The project name and number, and a statement that the project is licensed by the Commission; the licensee name and contact information for obtaining additional project recreation information; and permissible times and activities. This proposed change reduces the information that must be included on recreation signage, providing licensees greater flexibility to design signs that effectively communicate the appropriate information needed by public to use and enjoy the recreational opportunities afforded by a particular project.

    19. In addition, the Commission proposes to revise section 8.2(b) to require licensees with project websites to include on their websites copies of any approved recreation plan, recreation-related reports approved by the Commission, and the entire license instrument. As with the proposed revision to section 8.1, this requirement would only apply to a licensee that already has an existing project website, or decides to develop a project website in the future. This proposed changed would allow the public to obtain information about a project's recreation requirements by accessing the licensee's website, if applicable, or by visiting the licensee's local office in the project vicinity.

    III. Regulatory Requirements A. Information Collection Statement

    20. The Paperwork Reduction Act 22 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information (including reporting, record keeping, and public disclosure requirements) directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements contemplated by proposed rules (including deletion, revision, or implementation of new requirements).23 Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

    22 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (2012).

    23See 5 CFR 1320.11 (2017).

    21. Public Reporting Burden: In this NOPR, the Commission proposes to delete the Form 80 and to update the recreation-related requirements of FERC-500 and FERC-505.

    22. This proposed rule would eliminate an existing data collection, FERC-80 (OMB Control No. 1902-0106), as well as modify certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in FERC-500 (OMB Control No 1902-0058) 24 and FERC-505 (OMB Control No. 1902-0115).25

    24 FERC-500 includes the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for “Application for License/Relicense for Projects with Capacity Greater Than 5MW.”

    25 FERC-505 includes the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for “Small Hydropower Projects and Conduit Facilities including License/Relicense, Exemption, and Qualifying Conduit Facility Determination.”

    23. Under the most recent Form 80 reporting cycle,26 346 licensees prepared and filed 843 Form 80 reports.27 Every three years, the Commission is required to request from OMB an extension of any currently approved information collection. Since the Form 80 is only filed every six years, the most recent annual burden and cost figures provided to OMB were based on an estimate of 400 respondents. To determine the total number of responses per year for OMB submittal purposes, we multiplied the number of respondents (400) by the annual number of responses per respondent (0.167) to arrive at 67 responses per year. The Commission estimated the current public reporting burden to be an average of three hours per form, with an associated cost of approximately $224 per form. Because the Form 80 is filed every six years, the estimated annualized cost to complete each form is $37.44, with a total annual cost for all licenses of approximately $14,974.50. This estimate includes the time required to review instructions, research existing data sources, and complete and review the collection of information.

    26 Licensees were required to file Form 80 reports by April 1, 2015, containing recreational use and development data compiled during the 2014 calendar year.

    27 For projects with more than one development, the licensee is required to submit a Form 80 report for each development.

    24. This proposed rule, if adopted, would eliminate certain information collection and recordkeeping requirements. The proposed removal of the Form 80 report would eliminate the estimated annual information collection burden (201 hours) and cost ($14,974.50) associated with FERC-80 (OMB Control No. 1902-0106).28

    28 These figures are annual averages (for Paperwork Reduction Act purposes) of the burden and cost for the six-year cycle for the Form 80. The most recent OMB approval of the Form 80 was issued December 8, 2016.

    25. In addition, the proposed revisions to sections 8.1 and 8.2, associated with the FERC-500 and FERC-505 information collections,29 are intended to modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees' compliance efforts. With regard to modernized public notice practices, the proposed revisions would require licensees that have a project website to (1) publish notice on its website of license conditions related to recreation; and (2) maintain on its website copies of any approved recreation plan, recreation-related reports, and the license instrument. If a licensee does not have a project website, the website publication requirements would not apply. Accordingly, there is a slight increase in the reporting requirements and burden for FERC-500 and FERC-505.

    29 The Commission currently has 477 licenses for projects with an installed capacity more than 5 MW (reporting requirements covered by FERC-500) and 572 licenses for projects 5 MW or less (reporting requirements covered by FERC-505).

    26. The estimated changes to the burden and cost of the information collections affected by this NOPR follow.

    Annual Changes Proposed by the NOPR in Docket No. RM18-14-000 30 Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden hours and cost per response Total annual burden hours and total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) × (2) = (3) (4) (3) × (4) = 5 (5)/(1) FERC-80 (reduction) 31 400 32 0.167 67 (rounded) 3 hrs.; $224 (rounded); (reduction) 201 hrs.; $14,974.50 (rounded); (reduction) $224 (reduction). FERC-500 33 429 1 429 0.5 hr.; $26.77 (rounded) 215 hrs.; $11,484 (rounded) $26.77 (rounded). FERC-505 34 286 1 286 0.5 hr.; $26.77 (rounded) 143 hrs.; $7,656 (rounded) $26.77 (rounded).

    27. Titles: FERC Form 80 (Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report), FERC-500 (Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects with More than 5 Megawatt (MW) Capacity), and FERC-505 (Small Hydropower Projects and Conduit Facilities including License/Relicense, Exemption, and Qualifying Conduit Facility Determination)

    30 Hourly costs are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for May 2017 wages in Sector 22—Utilities (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and December 2017 benefits (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf). For web developers (code 15-1134), the estimated average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is $53.53.

    31 The figures are annualized figures contained in the current OMB inventory for FERC-80. While OMB requires existing information collections to be submitted for approval every three years, the Commission's hydropower licenses are only required to submit the Form 80 every six years. Therefore, the estimated figures for the entire six-year Form 80 cycle would be a total of 400 respondents, spending an estimated three hours per report, for a total of 1,200 hours.

    32 This figure indicates that a respondent files a Form 80 once every six years.

    33 We assume approximately 90 percent of the 477 for projects with an installed capacity of more than 5 MW licenses (i.e., an estimated 429 licenses) have project websites.

    34 We assume approximately 50 percent of the 572 licenses for projects 5 MW or less (i.e., an estimated 286 licenses) have project websites.

    28. Action: Deletion of information collection (FERC-80), and revisions to existing collections FERC-500 and FERC-505.

    29. OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0106 (FERC-80), 1902-0058 (FERC-500), and 1902-0115 (FERC-505).

    30. Respondents: Hydropower licensees, including municipalities, businesses, private citizens, and for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    31. Frequency of Information: Ongoing.

    32. Necessity of Information: The Commission proposes the changes in this NOPR in order to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements, modernize public notice practices, and clarify recreational signage requirements.

    33. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. The Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.

    34. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], by email to [email protected], by phone (202) 502-8663, or by fax (202) 273-0873.

    35. Comments concerning the collections of information and the associated burden estimates may also be sent to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following email address: [email protected] Comments submitted to OMB should refer to FERC-80, FERC-500, and FERC-505 and OMB Control Nos. 1902-0106 (FERC-80), 1902-0058 (FERC-500), and 1902-0115 (FERC-505).

    B. Environmental Analysis

    36. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant effect on the human environment.35 Excluded from this requirement are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not substantially change the effect of legislation or the regulations being amended.36 This proposed rule would update the Commission's recreation-related regulations by clarifying public notice and signage requirements, and eliminating unnecessary reporting requirements. Because this rule is clarifying and procedural in nature, preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

    35Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    36 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2017).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    37. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 37 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.38 In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis, an agency may certify that a proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.39

    37 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).

    38 5 U.S.C. 603(c) (2012).

    39 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (2012).

    38. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.40 The SBA size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 2014) is based on the number of employees, including affiliates.41 Under SBA's current size standards, a hydroelectric power generator (NAICS code 221111) 42 is small if, including its affiliates, it employs 500 or fewer people.43

    40 13 CFR 121.101 (2017).

    41 SBA Final Rule on “Small Business Size Standards: Utilities,” 78 FR 77,343 (Dec. 23, 2013).

    42 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is an industry classification system that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize businesses for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. economy. United States Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ (accessed April 11, 2018).

    43 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities (2017).

    39. This proposed rule directly affects all hydropower licensees that are currently required to file the Form 80. The proposal, if adopted, would remove the Form 80 filing requirement, eliminating (for small and large entities) the cost of $224 associated with filing the Form 80 every six years.

    40. In addition, the proposed revisions to sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Commission's regulations would directly affect all hydropower licensees of projects that offer existing or potential recreational use opportunities. The proposed revisions are intended to modernize public notice practices, clarify recreational signage requirements, and provide flexibility to assist licensees' compliance efforts. We expect the clarified signage requirements to benefit licensees by providing them more flexibility to design recreation-related signage strategies that best fit the needs of their individual projects. To modernize public notice practices, the proposed revisions would require licensees that have a project website, or develop one in the future, to publish and maintain certain recreation-related information on its website. If a licensee does not have a project website, the website publication requirements would not apply. Therefore, there is a slight increase in the information collection reporting requirements and burden for FERC-500 and FERC-505.44 However, we do not anticipate the impact on affected entities, regardless of their status as a small or large entity, to be significant.

    44 In the Information Collection section, we estimated the average burden and cost per respondent to be approximately 30 minutes and $26.77 per year.

    41. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Comment Procedures

    42. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due July 23, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM18-14-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address.

    43. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

    44. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    45. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

    E. Document Availability

    46. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    47. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

    48. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202)502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    List of Subjects 18 CFR Part 8

    Electric power, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    18 CFR Part 141

    Electric power, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By direction of the Commission. Issued: May 17, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to amend parts 8 and 141, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 8—RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND DEVELOPMENT AT LICENSED PROJECTS 1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-557; 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    2. Revise § 8.1 to read as follows:
    § 8.1 Publication of license conditions relating to recreation.

    Following the issuance or amendment of a license, the licensee shall make reasonable efforts to keep the public informed of the availability of project lands and waters for recreational purposes, and of the license conditions of interest to persons who may be interested in the recreational aspects of the project or who may wish to acquire lands in its vicinity. Such efforts shall include, but are not limited to: The publication of notice in a local newspaper once each week for 4 weeks, and publication on any project website, of the project's license conditions which relate to public access to and the use of the project waters and lands for recreational purposes, recreational plans, installation of recreation and fish and wildlife facilities, reservoir water surface elevations, minimum water releases or rates of change of water releases, and such other conditions of general public interest as the Commission may designate in the order issuing or amending the license.

    3. Revise § 8.2 to read as follows:
    § 8.2 Posting of project lands as to recreational use and availability of information.

    (a) Following the issuance or amendment of a license, the licensee shall post and maintain at all points of public access required by the license (or at such access points as are specifically designated for this purpose by the licensee) and at such other points as are subsequently prescribed by the Commission on its own motion or upon the recommendation of a public recreation agency operating in the project vicinity, a conspicuous sign that, at a minimum, identifies: The FERC project name and number, and a statement that the project is licensed by the Commission; the licensee name and contact information for obtaining additional project recreation information; and permissible times and activities. In addition, the licensee shall post at such locations conspicuous notice that the recreation facilities are open to all members of the public without discrimination.

    (b) The licensee shall make available for inspection at its local offices in the project vicinity, and on any project website, the approved recreation plan, any recreation-related reports approved by the Commission, and the entire license instrument, properly indexed for easy reference to the license conditions designated for publications in § 8.1.

    § 8.11 [Removed]
    4. Remove § 8.11. PART 141—STATEMENTS AND REPORTS (SCHEDULES) 5. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 79; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z; 16 U.S.C. 791a-828c, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

    § 141.14 [Removed]
    6. Remove 141.14.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11002 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM18-8-000] Geomagnetic Disturbance Reliability Standard AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 (Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization, submitted proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 for Commission approval. Geomagnetic disturbance events (GMDs) occur when the sun ejects charged particles that interact with and cause changes in the earth's magnetic fields. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 modifies currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 by requiring applicable entities to: Conduct supplemental GMD vulnerability assessments and thermal impact assessments; obtain geomagnetically induced current and magnetometer data; and meet certain deadlines for the development and completion of tasks in corrective action plans. In addition, the Commission proposes to direct NERC to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standard to require applicable entities to develop and implement corrective action plans to mitigate supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments are due July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed electronically at http://www.ferc.gov in acceptable native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by mail or hand-delivery to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more detailed filing procedures.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Kelly (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (301) 665-1394, [email protected]. Matthew Vlissides (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8408, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 (Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events).1 The Commission also proposes to approve the associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date for proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 for approval in response to a Commission directive in Order No. 830.2 Geomagnetic disturbance events (GMDs) occur when the sun ejects charged particles that interact with and cause changes in the earth's magnetic fields. This interaction can cause geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) to flow in an electric power system and, depending on various factors affecting the intensity of the current, can result in a risk of voltage instability or voltage collapse, as well as equipment loss or failure.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).

    2Reliability Standard for Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events, Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2016), reh'g denied, 158 FERC ¶ 61,041 (2017).

    2. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 modifies currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 (Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events) by requiring applicable entities to: (1) Conduct supplemental GMD vulnerability assessments and thermal impact assessments; (2) obtain GIC and magnetometer data; and (3) meet certain deadlines for the development and completion of tasks in corrective action plans.

    3. The Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 as it largely addresses (with one exception discussed below) the directives in Order No. 830 to modify currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1: (1) To revise the benchmark GMD event definition, as it pertains to the required GMD Vulnerability Assessments and transformer thermal impact assessments, so that the definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data; (2) to require the collection of necessary GIC monitoring and magnetometer data; and (3) to include a one-year deadline for the completion of corrective action plans and two- and four-year deadlines to complete mitigation actions involving non-hardware and hardware mitigation, respectively.

    4. While proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 addresses the first directive in Order No. 830 by requiring applicable entities to conduct supplemental GMD vulnerability and thermal impact assessments, which do not rely solely upon on spatially-averaged data, the proposed Reliability Standard does not require applicable entities to mitigate vulnerabilities identified pursuant to such a supplemental assessment.3 NERC's proposal to modify the benchmark, but then allow entities the discretion to take corrective action based solely on the results of the spatially-averaged data while taking under advisement (“an evaluation of possible actions”) the results of the supplemental assessment, does not satisfy the clear intent of the Commission's directive. Moreover, Order No. 830 reiterated the directive in Order No. 779 that NERC develop a second stage GMD Reliability Standard requiring GMD vulnerability assessments and that “owners and operators [ ] develop and implement a plan to protect against instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System.”4 Accordingly, as discussed below, the Commission proposes to direct that NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standard to require applicable entities to develop and implement corrective action plans to mitigate vulnerabilities revealed by conducting supplemental GMD vulnerability assessments.5 The Commission proposes to direct NERC to submit the modified Reliability Standard for approval within 12 months from the effective date of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2.

    3See Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 44 (directing NERC to “develop revisions to the benchmark GMD event definition so that the reference peak geoelectric field amplitude component is not based solely on spatially-averaged data”).

    4 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 7.

    5 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).

    5. In addition, while proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 imposes deadlines for the preparation and completion of tasks in corrective action plans, Requirement R7.4 of the proposed Reliability Standard also permits applicable entities to exceed deadlines for completing corrective action plan tasks when “situations beyond the control of the responsible entity [arise].” As discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on two options that it is considering regarding proposed Requirement R7.4. Under the first option, the Commission would, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, direct NERC to modify the Reliability Standard to bring the proposed standard into alignment with the Commission's direction in Order No. 830, through a process whereby NERC considers extensions on a case-by-case basis informed by proposed Requirement R7.4.6 Under the second option, the Commission would approve proposed Requirement R7.4. Under both options, the Commission would direct NERC to prepare and submit a report regarding how often and why applicable entities are exceeding corrective action plan deadlines following implementation of the proposed Reliability Standard. Under such a directive, NERC would submit the report within 12 months from the date on which applicable entities must comply with the last requirement of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2.7

    6 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 102.

    7 NERC's proposed implementation plan provides that, depending on the effective date of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, applicable entities will be required to comply with the requirements of the proposed Reliability Standard on a staggered schedule. For example, if proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 becomes effective before January 1, 2021, the last requirement applicable entities will be required to comply with is Requirement R7 54 months following the effective date of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. If proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 becomes effective after January 1, 2021, the last requirement applicable entities will be required to comply with is Requirement R8 72 months following the effective date of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2.

    I. Background A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    6. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission to certify an ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced in the United States by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.8

    8 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).

    B. GMD Primer

    7. GMD events occur when the sun ejects charged particles that interact and cause changes in the earth's magnetic fields.9 Once a solar particle is ejected, it can take between 17 to 96 hours (depending on its energy level) to reach earth.10 A geoelectric field is the electric potential (measured in volts per kilometer (V/km)) on the earth's surface and is directly related to the rate of change of the magnetic fields.11 The geoelectric field has an amplitude and direction and acts as a voltage source that can cause GICs to flow on long conductors, such as transmission lines.12 The magnitude of the geoelectric field amplitude is impacted by local factors such as geomagnetic latitude and local earth conductivity.13 Geomagnetic latitude is the proximity to earth's magnetic north and south poles, as opposed to earth's geographic poles.14 Local earth conductivity is the ability of the earth's crust to conduct electricity at a certain location to depths of hundreds of kilometers down to the earth's mantle. Local earth conductivity impacts the magnitude (i.e., severity) of the geoelectric fields that are formed during a GMD event by, all else being equal, a lower earth conductivity resulting in higher geoelectric fields.15

    9See NERC, 2012 Special Reliability Assessment Interim Report: Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk Power System at i-ii (February 2012), http://www.nerc.com/files/2012GMD.pdf.

    10Id. at ii.

    11Id.

    12Id.

    13 NERC, Benchmark Geomagnetic Disturbance Event Description, Docket No. 15-11-000, at 4 (filed June 28, 2016) (2016 NERC White Paper).

    14Id.

    15Id.

    8. GICs can flow in an electric power system with varying intensity depending on the various factors discussed above. As explained in the Background section of the proposed Reliability Standard, “[d]uring a GMD event, geomagnetically‐induced currents (GIC) may cause transformer hot‐spot heating or damage, loss of Reactive Power sources, increased Reactive Power demand, and Misoperation(s), the combination of which may result in voltage collapse and blackout.”

    C. Currently-Effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 and Order No. 830 1. Currently-Effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1

    9. Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 consists of seven requirements and applies to planning coordinators, transmission planners, transmission owners and generation owners who own or whose planning coordinator area or transmission planning area includes a power transformer with a high side, wye-grounded winding connected at 200 kV or higher.

    10. Requirement R1 requires planning coordinators and transmission planners (i.e., “responsible entities”) to determine the individual and joint responsibilities in the planning coordinator's planning area for maintaining models and performing studies needed to complete the GMD vulnerability assessment required in Requirement R4. Requirement R2 requires responsible entities to maintain system models and GIC system models needed to complete the GMD vulnerability assessment required in Requirement R4. Requirement R3 requires each responsible entity to have criteria for acceptable system steady state voltage performance for its system during the GMD conditions described in Attachment 1 of Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. Requirement R4 requires responsible entities to conduct a GMD vulnerability assessment every 60 months using the benchmark GMD event described in Attachment 1. Requirement R5 requires responsible entities to provide GIC flow information, based on the benchmark GMD event definition, to be used in the transformer thermal impact assessments required in Requirement R6, to each transmission owner and generator owner that owns an applicable transformer within the applicable planning area. Requirement R6 requires transmission owners and generator owners to conduct thermal impact assessments on solely and jointly owned applicable transformers where the maximum effective GIC value provided in Requirement R5 is 75 amps per phase (A/phase) or greater. Requirement R7 requires responsible entities to develop corrective action plans if the GMD vulnerability assessment concludes that the system does not meet the performance requirements in Table 1 of Reliability Standard TPL-007-1.

    11. Calculation of the benchmark GMD event, against which applicable entities must assess their facilities, is fundamental to compliance with Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R3 states that “[e]ach responsible entity, as determined in Requirement R1, shall have criteria for acceptable System steady state voltage performance for its System during the benchmark GMD event described in Attachment 1.”

    Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Attachment 1 states that the benchmark GMD event is composed of four elements: (1) A reference peak geoelectric field amplitude of 8 V/km derived from statistical analysis of historical magnetometer data; (2) a scaling factor to account for local geomagnetic latitude; (3) a scaling factor to account for local earth conductivity; and (4) a reference geomagnetic field time series or wave shape to facilitate time-domain analysis of GMD impact on equipment. The product of the first three elements is referred to as the regional peak geoelectric field amplitude. The benchmark GMD event defines the geoelectric field values used to compute GIC flows for a GMD vulnerability assessment, which is required in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1.16

    16See Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirements R4 and R5. Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 does not set a threshold amount of GIC flow that would constitute a vulnerable transformer. However, if a transformer is calculated to experience a maximum effective GIC flow during a benchmark GMD event of a least 75 A/phase, a thermal impact assessment of that transformer is required. See Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, Requirement R6.

    12. For the purpose of determining a benchmark event that specifies what severity GMD events a responsible entity must assess for potential impacts on the Bulk-Power System, NERC determined that a 1-in-100 year GMD event would cause an 8 V/km reference peak geoelectric field amplitude at 60 degree north geomagnetic latitude using Québec's earth conductivity.17 Scaling factors (i.e., multiplying values) are applied to this reference peak geoelectric field amplitude to adjust the 8 V/km value for different geomagnetic latitudes (scaling factors between 0.1 and 1.0) and earth conductivities (scaling factors between 0.21 and 1.17). NERC identified a reference geomagnetic field time series from an Ottawa, Ontario magnetic observatory during a 1989 GMD storm affecting Québec. NERC used this to estimate a time series (i.e., 10-second values over a period of days) of the geoelectric field that is representative of what is expected to occur at 60 degree geomagnetic latitude during a 1-in-100 year GMD event. Such a time series is used in some methods of calculating the vulnerability of a transformer to damage from heating caused by GIC.

    17 NERC used Québec as the location for the reference peak 1-in-100 year GMD event because of its proximity to 60 degree geomagnetic latitude and its well understood earth model. By creating scaling factors, each entity can scale this reference peak geoelectric field and geoelectric field time series values to match its own expected field conditions.

    13. NERC used field measurements taken from the International Monitor for Auroral Geomagnetic Effects (IMAGE) magnetometer chain, which consists of 39 magnetometer stations in Northern Europe, for the period 1993-2013 to calculate the reference peak geoelectric field amplitude. As described in the 2016 NERC White Paper, to arrive at a reference peak geoelectric field amplitude of 8 V/km, NERC “spatially averaged” four different station groups each spanning a square area of approximately 500 km (roughly 310 miles) in width.18

    18 “Spatial Averaging” refers to the averaging of magnetometer readings over a geographic area. The standard drafting team averaged several (but not all) geomagnetic field readings taken by magnetometers located within square geographical areas of 500 km per side.

    2. Order No. 830

    14. On January 21, 2015, NERC submitted for Commission approval Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 in response to a directive in Order No. 779, which directed NERC to develop one or more Reliability Standards to address the effects of GMD events on the electric grid.19 In Order No. 830, the Commission approved Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, concluding that Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 addressed the Commission's directive by requiring applicable Bulk-Power System owners and operators to conduct, on a recurring five-year cycle, initial and ongoing vulnerability assessments regarding the potential impact of a benchmark GMD event on the Bulk-Power System as a whole and on Bulk-Power System components. In addition, the Commission determined that Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 requires applicable entities to develop and implement corrective action plans to mitigate vulnerabilities identified through those recurring vulnerability assessments and that potential mitigation strategies identified in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 include, but are not limited to, the installation, modification or removal of transmission and generation facilities and associated equipment.

    19Reliability Standards for Geomagnetic Disturbances, Order No. 779, 143 FERC ¶ 61,147, reh'g denied, 144 FERC ¶ 61,113 (2013).

    15. In Order No. 830, the Commission also determined that Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 should be modified. Specifically, Order No. 830 directed NERC to develop and submit modifications to Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 concerning: (1) The calculation of the reference peak geoelectric field amplitude component of the benchmark GMD event definition; (2) the collection and public availability of necessary GIC monitoring and magnetometer data; and (3) deadlines for completing corrective action plans and the mitigation measures called for in corrective action plans. Order No. 830 directed NERC to develop and submit these revisions for Commission approval within 18 months of the effective date of Order No. 830.

    16. With respect to the calculation of the reference peak geoelectric field amplitude component of the benchmark GMD event definition, Order No. 830 expressed concern with relying solely on spatial averaging in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 because “the use of spatial averaging in this context is new, and thus there is a dearth of information or research regarding its application or appropriate scale.” 20 While Order No. 830 directed that the peak geoelectric field amplitude should not be based solely on spatially-averaged data, the Commission indicated that this “directive should not be construed to prohibit the use of spatial averaging in some capacity, particularly if more research results in a better understanding of how spatial averaging can be used to reflect actual GMD events.” 21

    20 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 45.

    21Id. P 46.

    D. NERC Petition and Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2

    17. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 enhances currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 by addressing reliability risks posed by GMDs more effectively and implementing the directives in Order No. 830.22 NERC asserts that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 reflects the latest in GMD understanding and provides a technically sound and flexible approach to addressing the concerns discussed in Order No. 830. NERC contends that the proposed modifications enhance reliability by expanding GMD vulnerability assessments to include severe, localized impacts and by implementing deadlines and processes to maintain accountability in the development, completion, and revision of corrective action plans developed to address identified vulnerabilities. Further, NERC states that the proposed modifications improve the availability of GMD monitoring data that may be used to inform GMD vulnerability assessments.

    22 Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 is not attached to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 is available on the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM18-8-000 and on the NERC website, www.nerc.com.

    18. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 modifies currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 by requiring applicable entities to: (1) Conduct supplemental GMD vulnerability and transformer thermal impact assessments in addition to the existing benchmark GMD vulnerability and transformer thermal impact assessments required in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1; (2) collect data from GIC monitors and magnetometers as necessary to enable model validation and situational awareness; and (3) develop necessary corrective action plans within one year from the completion of the benchmark GMD vulnerability assessment, include a two-year deadline for the implementation of non-hardware mitigation, and include a four-year deadline to complete hardware mitigation.23

    23 Unless otherwise indicated, the requirements of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 are substantively the same as the requirements in currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 contains conforming and other non-substantive modifications that are not addressed in this NOPR.

    19. In particular, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 modifies Requirements R1 (identification of responsibilities) and R2 (system and GIC system models) to extend the existing requirements pertaining to benchmark GMD assessments to the proposed supplemental GMD assessments. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 adds the newly mandated supplemental GMD vulnerability and transformer thermal impact assessments in new Requirements R8 (supplemental GMD vulnerability assessment), R9 (GIC flow information needed for supplemental GMD thermal impact assessments) and R10 (supplemental GMD thermal impact assessments). The supplemental GMD event definition contains a higher, non-spatially-averaged reference peak geoelectric field amplitude component than the benchmark GMD event definition (12 V/km versus 8 V/km). These three new requirements largely mirror existing Requirements R4, R5, and R6 that currently apply, and would continue to apply, only to benchmark GMD vulnerability and transformer thermal impact assessments.24

    24 An exception is the qualifying threshold for transformers required to undergo thermal impact assessments: For the supplemental GMD assessment the qualifying threshold for transformers is a maximum effective GIC value of 85 A/phase while the threshold for benchmark GMD event assessments is 75 A/phase.

    20. In addition, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 includes two other new requirements, Requirements R11 and R12, that require applicable entities to gather GIC monitored data (Requirement R11) and magnetometer data (Requirement R12).

    21. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 modifies existing Requirement R7 (corrective action plans) to create a one-year deadline for the development of corrective action plans and two and four-year deadlines to complete actions involving non-hardware and hardware mitigation, respectively, for vulnerabilities identified in the benchmark GMD assessment. The proposed modifications to Requirement R7 include a provision allowing for extension of deadlines if “situations beyond the control of the responsible entity determined in Requirement R1 prevent implementation of the [corrective action plan] within the timetable for implementation.”

    II. Discussion

    22. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the FPA, the Commission proposes to approve Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 addresses the directives in Order No. 830 to modify currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1: (1) To revise the benchmark GMD event definition, as it pertains to the required GMD Vulnerability Assessments and transformer thermal impact assessments, so that the definition is not based solely on spatially-averaged data; (2) to require the collection of necessary GIC monitoring and magnetometer data; and (3) to include a one-year deadline for the completion of corrective action plans and two and four-year deadlines to complete mitigation actions involving non-hardware and hardware mitigation, respectively.25

    25 NERC states that it will address the directive in Order No. 830 on public dissemination of GIC monitoring and magnetometer data through a forthcoming NERC data request to applicable entities pursuant to Section 1600 of the NERC Rules of Procedure rather than through a Reliability Standard requirement. On February 7, 2018, NERC released a draft data request for a 45-day comment period. After reviewing the comments, NERC indicates that it intends to seek authorization from the NERC Board of Trustees to issue the data request in August 2018. NERC Petition at 27.

    23. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 complies with the directives in Order No. 830 by requiring, in addition to the benchmark GMD event vulnerability and thermal impact assessments, supplemental GMD vulnerability and thermal impact assessments. The supplemental GMD event definition in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 contains a non-spatially-averaged reference peak geoelectric field amplitude component of 12 V/km, in contrast to the 8 V/km figure in the spatially-averaged benchmark GMD event definition. As NERC explains in its petition, the supplemental GMD event will be used to “represent conditions associated with localized enhancement of the geomagnetic field during a severe GMD event for use in assessing GMD impacts.” 26 Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 therefore addresses the Commission's directive to modify currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 so that the benchmark GMD event does not rely solely on spatially-averaged data to calculate the reference peak geoelectric field amplitude.

    26 NERC Petition at 12.

    24. While proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 addresses the first directive in Order No. 830 by requiring applicable entities to conduct supplemental GMD vulnerability and thermal impact assessments, the proposed Reliability Standard does not require applicable entities to mitigate such vulnerabilities. Instead, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, Requirement R8.3 only requires applicable entities to make “an evaluation of possible actions designed to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the consequences and adverse impacts of the event(s)” if a supplemental GMD event is assessed to result in Cascading.27 As discussed below, NERC's proposal differs significantly from Order No. 830 because the intent of the directive was not only to identify vulnerabilities arising from localized GMD events but also to mitigate such vulnerabilities. Moreover, Order No. 830 reiterated the directive in Order No. 779 that NERC develop a second stage GMD Reliability Standard requiring GMD vulnerability assessments and that “owners and operators [ ] develop and implement a plan to protect against instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System.” 28 Accordingly, the Commission proposes to direct NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standard to require applicable entities to develop and implement corrective action plans to mitigate supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities. The Commission proposes to direct NERC to submit the modified Reliability Standard for approval within 12 months from the effective date of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2.

    27 The NERC Glossary defines Cascading as “uncontrolled successive loss of System Elements triggered by an incident at any location . . . [c]ascading results in widespread electric service interruption that cannot be restrained from sequentially spreading beyond an area predetermined by studies.” Glossary of Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards (January 31, 2018).

    28 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 7.

    25. In addition, as discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on the need for Requirement R7.4 of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, which allows applicable entities to extend corrective action plan implementation deadlines, as compared to a process whereby NERC considers extensions on a case-by-case basis, as suggested in Order No. 830.29 After reviewing the comments, the Commission may approve the requirement but direct NERC to prepare and submit a report concerning the use of corrective action plan deadline extensions as allowed under proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, Requirement R7.4. Under such a directive, NERC would submit the report within 12 months from the date on which applicable entities must comply with the last requirement of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. Alternatively, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission may direct NERC to modify the Reliability Standard to remove Requirement R7.4.

    29Id. P 102.

    A. Corrective Action Plan for Supplemental GMD Event Vulnerabilities NERC Petition

    26. In requiring applicable entities to assess their vulnerabilities to a supplemental GMD event, NERC states that geomagnetic fields during severe GMD events can be spatially non‐uniform with higher and lower strengths across a geographic region. NERC explains that the supplemental GMD event was derived using individual station measurements rather than spatially-averaged measurements, and thus includes localized enhancement of field strength above the average value found in the benchmark GMD event. NERC contends that the supplemental GMD event thus addresses the directive in Order No. 830 to revise Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 to account for the effects of localized peaks that could potentially affect reliable operations.

    27. NERC maintains that the benchmark GMD event and supplemental GMD event are similar in structure but the supplemental GMD event contains differences to account for localized impacts. NERC explains that, like the benchmark GMD event, the supplemental GMD event defines the geomagnetic and geoelectric field values used to compute GIC flows for use in a GMD vulnerability assessment and is composed of four elements: (1) Reference peak geoelectric field amplitude of 12 V/km derived from statistical analysis of historical magnetometer data; (2) scaling factors to account for local geomagnetic latitude; (3) scaling factors to account for local earth conductivity; and (4) a locally-enhanced reference geomagnetic field time series or waveform to facilitate time-domain analysis of GMD impact on equipment.

    28. NERC states that the higher reference peak geoelectric field amplitude (12 V/km compared to 8 V/km used in the benchmark GMD event) and local enhancements to the geomagnetic field time series or waveform are distinguishing characteristics of the supplemental GMD event and are intended to represent conditions associated with localized enhancement of the geomagnetic field during a severe GMD event for use in assessing GMD impacts.30

    30 NERC states that the supplemental GMD event waveform is more severe than the benchmark GMD event waveform because it includes a five-minute duration enhanced peak up to 12 V/km for the reference earth model and 60 degree geomagnetic latitude. NERC Petition at 13. NERC explains that this synthetic enhancement represents the observed localized, rapid magnetic field variation periods associated with ionospheric sources during some severe GMD events. Id. NERC observes that such GMD conditions could result in increased transformer heating for short durations during a severe GMD event due to increased GIC flows. Id.

    29. In developing the supplemental GMD event, NERC indicates that the standard drafting team ensured that the peak geoelectric field does not rely on spatial averaging of geomagnetic field data. NERC states that, like the value in the existing benchmark GMD event, the supplemental GMD event peak geoelectric field is a 1-in-100 year extreme value determined using statistical analysis of historical geomagnetic field data. NERC explains that the fundamental difference in the supplemental GMD event amplitude is that it is based on geomagnetic field observations taken at individual observation stations (i.e., localized measurements), instead of the spatially-averaged geoelectric fields used in the benchmark GMD event. NERC states that the result of the extreme value analysis shows that the supplemental GMD event peak of 12 V/km is above the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval for a 100‐year interval, while the same confidence interval with spatially-averaged data (i.e., the benchmark GMD event) is 8 V/km.

    30. NERC indicates that the corrective action plans mandated in Requirement R7 continue to apply only if an entity has identified system performance issues through the benchmark GMD vulnerability assessments. NERC explains that mitigation for assessed supplemental GMD vulnerabilities are addressed in proposed Requirement R8.3, which states that if a responsible entity concludes that there would be “Cascading” caused by the supplemental GMD event, the entity shall conduct an analysis of possible actions to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the impacts of the event.31

    31 NERC Petition at 23.

    31. NERC states that the standard drafting team determined that requiring corrective action plans in response to assessed supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities would not be appropriate at this time because the supplemental GMD event definition uses a small number of observed localized enhanced geoelectric field events that provide only general insight into the geographic size of localized events during severe solar storms.32 NERC also contends that currently available modeling tools do not provide entities with capabilities to model localized enhancements within a severe GMD event realistically.33 As a result, NERC claims that applicable entities may need to employ conservative approaches when performing the supplemental GMD vulnerability assessment, such as applying the localized peak geoelectric field over an entire planning area.34 NERC states that, for these reasons, “requiring mandatory mitigation may not provide effective reliability benefit or use resources optimally.” 35 NERC contends that the approach used in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 for the supplemental GMD event provides entities with flexibility to consider and select mitigation actions based on their circumstances and is similar to the approach used in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, Requirement R3.5 for extreme events.36

    32Id.

    33Id.

    34Id. at 24.

    35Id.

    36Id.

    Commission Proposal

    32. NERC's proposal not to require corrective action plans for supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities differs significantly from Order No. 830 because the intent and clear meaning of the directive was not only to identify vulnerabilities arising from localized GMD events but also to mitigate such vulnerabilities. Order No. 830 reiterated the directive in Order No. 779 that NERC develop a second stage GMD Reliability Standard requiring GMD vulnerability assessments and that “owners and operators [ ] develop and implement a plan to protect against instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the Bulk-Power System.” 37 By contrast, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 allows supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities to potentially go unmitigated even, for example, if an applicable entity assesses that the supplemental GMD event causes Cascading.38

    37 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 7.

    38 Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, Requirement R8.3 (“If the analysis concludes there is Cascading caused by the supplemental GMD event described in Attachment 1, an evaluation of possible actions designed to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the consequences and adverse impacts of the event(s) shall be conducted.”).

    33. Moreover, in Order No. 830, the Commission directed NERC to “develop revisions to the benchmark GMD event definition so that the reference peak geoelectric field amplitude component is not based solely on spatially-averaged data.” 39 NERC's proposal to modify the benchmark, but then allow applicable entities the discretion to take corrective action based solely on the results of the spatially-averaged benchmark analysis while taking under advisement (“an evaluation of possible actions”) the results of the supplemental assessment, does not satisfy the clear intent of the Commission's directive.

    39Id. at 44.

    34. Further, we are not persuaded by NERC's reasoning that: (1) Existing technical limitations, specifically the limited number of observations used to define the supplemental GMD event and the availability of modeling tools to assist entities in assessing vulnerabilities, make requiring mitigation premature at this time; and (2) requiring only an evaluation of possible actions for supplemental GMD events that result in Cascading is similar to the treatment of extreme events in Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 (Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements).

    35. We believe, based on the information before us, that it is reasonable to require applicable entities to mitigate supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities because, as NERC contends, the supplemental GMD event “provides a technically justified method of assessing vulnerabilities to the localized peak effects of severe GMD events.” 40 While the supplemental GMD event possesses characteristics that differentiate it from the benchmark GMD event (i.e., geographic area, peak amplitude, duration, and geoelectric field waveform), both events were developed by the standard drafting team using a common framework. The standard drafting team determined the peak amplitude of the supplemental GMD event using generalized extreme value statistical analysis methods, as it did for the benchmark GMD event, and found a consistent result of 12 V/km with a 95 percent confidence interval. Generalized extreme value analysis is well-supported in the technical literature and, in approving the benchmark GMD event, was previously accepted in Order No. 830. The basic waveform used for the supplemental GMD event is the same waveform used in the benchmark GMD event.41 Similar to the methodology for determining peak amplitude, the benchmark GMD event waveform was previously considered appropriate in Order No. 830. While the supplemental GMD event waveform includes a “five-minute duration enhanced peak up to 12 V/km,” NERC does not suggest that the duration of the enhanced peak is unrepresentative of the behavior of localized enhancements.

    40 NERC Petition at 13.

    41Id. (“Both the benchmark and supplemental GMD event waveforms are based on 10-second sampling interval magnetic field data from the Ottawa observatory recorded during the March 13-14, 1989 GMD event.”).

    36. NERC contends that the low number of real-world observations on which the supplemental GMD event is based calls into question the accuracy of its geographic size.42 However, any uncertainty regarding the size of the geographic footprint of the supplemental GMD event could be addressed by applicable entities through sensitivity analysis and other methods within the planning studies. The proposed Reliability Standard does not prescribe how applicable entities must perform such studies; so applicable entities may incorporate this uncertainty into their studies. Indeed, Attachment 1 (Calculating Geoelectric Fields for the Benchmark and Supplemental GMD Events) of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 states that “Planners have flexibility to determine how to apply the localized peak geoelectric field over the planning area in performing GIC calculations.” 43 Attachment 1 provides that an applicable entity may apply the supplemental GMD event definition over the entire planning area; apply some combination of the benchmark GMD event and supplemental GMD event over portions of a planning area; or use “[o]ther methods to adjust the benchmark GMD event analysis to account for the localized geoelectric field enhancement of the supplemental GMD event.” 44 The flexibility afforded to applicable entities by proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 to determine the geographic size of the supplemental GMD event, in our view, addresses NERC's concern.

    42Id. at 23 (“[the] small number of observed localized enhanced geoelectric field events . . . provide only general insight into the geographic size of localized events during severe solar storms”).

    43 Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, Attachment 1, Applying the Localized Peak Geoelectric Field in the Supplemental GMD Event.

    44Id.

    37. The Supplemental Geomagnetic Disturbance Event Description appended to NERC's petition further supports the supplemental GMD event definition by stating that “[b]ased on the above analysis and the previous work associated with the benchmark GMD event, it is reasonable to incorporate a second (or supplemental) assessment into TPL‐007‐2 to account for the potential impact of a local enhancement in both the network analysis and the transformer thermal assessment(s).” 45 The Supplemental GMD Event White Paper also states that “[g]iven the current state of knowledge regarding the spatial extent of a local geomagnetic field enhancements, upper geographic boundaries, such as the values used in the approaches above, are reasonable but are not definitive.” 46

    45 NERC Petition, Exhibit I (Supplemental Geomagnetic Disturbance Event Description) at 12 (Supplemental GMD Event White Paper).

    46Id. at 13.

    38. With respect to NERC's contention regarding the unavailability of modeling tools, we are not persuaded. We understand that there are commercially available tools that could allow for modeling of supplemental GMD events.47 In addition to these modeling tools, other methods could be used within the framework of the Reliability Standard to study planning areas (e.g., superposition or sensitivity studies) in conjunction with other power system modeling tools. However, we will consider any comments that substantiate NERC's position.

    47See, e.g., Siemens Power Technologies International, GIC Module to Analyze Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Grid, Features Summary, http://w3.usa.siemens.com/smartgrid/us/en/transmission-grid/products/grid-analysis-tools/transmission-system-planning/Documents/PTI_FF_EN_SWPE_GIC_1412.pdf; PowerWorld, Simulator, Geomagnetically Induced Current (GIC), https://www.powerworld.com/products/simulator/add-ons-2/simulator-gic.

    39. In addition, the Commission recognized in Order No. 830 that an improved understanding of GMDs is necessary and directed NERC to conduct certain GMD-related research. The GMD research directed in Order No. 830 is meant to address technical limitations regarding GMD mitigation, among other areas. In the preliminary GMD research work plan submitted by NERC on May 30, 2017, NERC stated that the Commission in Order No. 830 “noted its concern that a spatially-averaged benchmark may not adequately account for localized peak geoelectric fields that could potentially affect reliable operations.” 48 In response, NERC indicated that it will conduct “(i) research [Task 1 of the GMD research work plan] to improve understanding of the characteristics and spatial scales of localized geoelectric field enhancements caused by severe GMD events; and (ii) research to determine the impacts of spatial averaging assumptions on [Bulk-Power System] reliability.” 49 NERC estimated that Task 1, which includes the development of better models, will require approximately 24-36 months to complete from start of work. Such GMD research on localized events should inform the standard development process and aid applicable entities when implementing a modified Reliability Standard.50

    48 NERC, Geomagnetic Disturbance Research Work Plan of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Docket No. RM15-11-002, at 8 (filed May 30, 2017).

    49Id.

    50 On April 19, 2018, NERC submitted a revised GMD Work Plan that is currently pending before the Commission. NERC, Revised Geomagnetic Disturbance Research Work Plan of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Docket No. 15-11-003 (filed April 19, 2018). The revised GMD Work Plan provides additional detail to the previous version. NERC now estimates that Task 1 deliverables will be completed in 2019. Id., Attachment 1 (Order No. 830 GMD Research Work Plan (April 2018)) at 7.

    40. We are also not persuaded by NERC's reliance on Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 to justify only requiring an evaluation of possible actions for supplemental GMD events that result in Cascading in light of the directive in Order No. 830. In Order No. 830, the Commission directed NERC to modify the proposed Reliability Standard to assess and address the risks posed by enhanced localized GMD events to the Bulk-Power System. In contrast, in approving Reliability Standard TPL-001-4, the Commission did not direct NERC to further modify the Reliability Standard to address the risks posed by extreme events. Accordingly, the treatment of extreme events under Reliability Standard TPL-001-4 does not support the notion here that applicable entities should, as NERC suggests, have the “the flexibility to . . . consider mitigation.” 51 However, as with the mitigation of benchmark GMD event vulnerabilities, we agree with NERC that any required mitigation of supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities should be flexible in terms of how applicable entities choose to mitigate such vulnerabilities. NERC's petition already stresses that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 affords flexibility as to how applicable entities apply the supplemental GMD event to their planning areas.52

    51 NERC Petition at 24 (emphasis added).

    52 NERC Petition, Exhibit I at 13 (“Proposed TPL‐007‐2 provides flexibility for planners to determine how to apply the supplemental GMD event to the planning area.”).

    41. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to direct NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standard to require applicable entities to develop and implement corrective action plans to mitigate supplemental GMD event vulnerabilities. The Commission proposes to direct NERC to submit the modified Reliability Standard for approval within 12 months from the effective date of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. The Commission seeks comments from NERC and other interested entities on this proposal.

    B. Corrective Action Plan Deadline Extensions NERC Petition

    42. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, Requirement R7.2 requires responsible entities to develop a corrective action plan within one year of the benchmark GMD vulnerability assessment, if the entity concludes that its System does not meet the performance requirements for the steady state planning benchmark GMD event. NERC indicates that under Requirement R7.3, the corrective action plan shall include a timeline that specifies the completion of non-hardware and hardware mitigation within two and four years of development of the corrective action plan, respectively.

    43. NERC maintains that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 also recognizes that there may be circumstances outside of a responsible entity's control that could prevent the completion of a mitigation activity within the specified timetable. NERC cites as examples delays due to regulatory or legal processes, such as permitting; delays from stakeholder processes required by tariffs; delays resulting from equipment lead times; or delays resulting from the inability to acquire necessary right-of-way. NERC explains that in such circumstances, a responsible entity may maintain compliance by revising its corrective action plan in accordance with Requirement R7.4. NERC states that under Requirement R7.4, the responsible entity shall revise its corrective action plan if events beyond its control prevent implementation within the original timetable. NERC explains that in the revised corrective action plan, the responsible entity must provide justification for its revised timetable by documenting: (1) The circumstances causing the delay; (2) description of the original corrective action plan and any changes; and (3) revisions to selected actions, including the use of any operating procedures if applicable, along with an updated timetable for completion. NERC states that the revised corrective action plan shall be updated at least annually and the responsible entity must then provide its revised corrective action plan to recipients of the original corrective action plan (i.e., reliability coordinator, adjacent planning coordinator(s), adjacent transmission planner(s), functional entities referenced in the corrective action plan, and any functional entity that submits a written request and has a reliability related need for the information).

    44. NERC contends that this proposal is consistent with other Commission-approved Reliability Standards. NERC cites Reliability Standard FAC-003-4, Requirement R7 and asserts that it provides that an entity may modify its annual vegetation work plan in light of circumstances beyond the entity's control, such as a natural disaster or other circumstance. NERC also cites Reliability Standard PRC-004-5(i), Requirement R5 and contends that under that Reliability Standard a responsible entity that owns a protection system component that caused a misoperation shall either develop a corrective action plan or explain in a declaration why corrective actions are beyond the entity's control or would not improve reliability.

    Commission Proposal

    45. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 satisfies Order No. 830 by incorporating the deadlines set out by the Commission for the development and implementation of corrective action plans. However, Requirement R7.4 of the proposed Reliability Standard differs from Order No. 830 by allowing applicable entities to “revise” or “update” corrective action plans to extend deadlines. This provision contrasts with the Commission's guidance in Order No. 830 that “NERC should consider extensions of time on a case-by-case basis.” 53

    53 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 102.

    46. NERC contends that the proposed Reliability Standard “would implement the Commission directed deadlines for Corrective Action Plans and mitigation, along with a process to maintain accountability and communication with affected entities when circumstances beyond a responsible entity's control affect the entity's ability to complete implementation within the original deadlines.” 54 Given the complexities and potential novelty of steps applicable entities may take to mitigate the risks of GMDs, we agree with NERC that there should be a mechanism for allowing extensions of corrective action plan implementation deadlines. However, we would like to avoid unnecessary delay in implementing protection against GMD threats. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the proposal is supported by the precedent cited by NERC because the Reliability Standards NERC cites are distinguishable.

    54 NERC Petition at 22.

    47. NERC maintains that provisions similar to Requirement R7.4 are found in two Reliability Standards. NERC states that Reliability Standard FAC-003-4, Requirement R7, allows a registered entity to modify its annual vegetation work plan in light of circumstances beyond the entity's control. While Reliability Standard FAC-003-4, Requirement R7 permits modifications to annual vegetation work plans, the modifications cannot result in a registered entity's failure to avoid the damage contemplated by Requirement R7—vegetation encroachment: “Modifications to the work plan in response to changing conditions or to findings from vegetation inspections may be made (provided they do not allow encroachment of vegetation into the [minimum vegetation clearance distance]) and must be documented.” In contrast, proposed Requirement R7.4 could enable applicable entities to delay mitigation that would avoid the damage of known GMD vulnerabilities. Accordingly, the extensions of time permitted by Reliability Standard FAC-003-4, because they may not result in the damage contemplated by the Reliability Standard, are not comparable, as NERC asserts, to failure to mitigate an existing GMD vulnerability in a timely manner.

    48. NERC also compares the corrective action plan provision in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 with Reliability Standard PRC-004-5(i), Requirement R5, which allows “a responsible entity that owns a Protection System component that caused a Misoperation . . . [to] either develop a Corrective Action Plan or explain in a declaration why corrective actions are beyond the entity's control or would not improve reliability.” We are not persuaded that NERC's proposal to allow self-declared extensions of time in Requirement R7.4 is supported by the quoted language in Reliability Standard PRC-004-5(i), Requirement R5 because Requirement R5 does not allow for extensions of time. Rather, Requirement R5 permits the registered entity to declare that it cannot carry out corrective actions (e.g., because the misoperation occurred on facilities it does not own or control) or because the corrective action would not improve Bulk-Power System reliability. Moreover, the Guidelines and Technical Basis document accompanying Reliability Standard PRC-004-5(i) concludes by stating that a “declaration that no further corrective actions will be taken is expected to be used sparingly.”

    49. Given these concerns, the Commission is considering two options in response to Requirement R7.4 of the proposed Reliability Standard. The Commission seeks comment from NERC and other interested entities on each of these proposals.

    50. Under the first option, the Commission would, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, direct NERC to modify the proposed Reliability Standard to comport with Order No. 830, by requiring that NERC and the Regional Entities, as appropriate, consider requests for extension of time on a case-by-case basis.55 Under this option, responsible entities seeking an extension would submit the information required by proposed Requirement R7.4 to NERC and the Regional Entities for their consideration of the request. The Commission would also direct NERC to prepare and submit a report addressing the disposition of any such requests, as well as information regarding how often and why applicable entities are exceeding corrective action plan deadlines following implementation of the proposed Reliability Standard.56 Under such a directive, NERC would submit the report within 12 months from the date on which applicable entities must comply with the last requirement of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. Following receipt of the report, the Commission would determine whether further action is necessary.

    55 Order No. 830, 156 FERC ¶ 61,215 at P 102.

    56 Under proposed Requirement R7.4, when an applicable entity extends a corrective action plan deadline, it must revise the corrective action plan to explain the “[c]ircumstances causing the delay for fully or partially implementing the selected actions.” NERC could use this information to populate the proposed report.

    51. Under the second option, the Commission would approve proposed Requirement R7.4 but also direct NERC to prepare and submit a report regarding how often and why applicable entities are exceeding corrective action plan deadlines following implementation of the proposed Reliability Standard. Under such a directive, NERC would submit the report within 12 months from the date on which applicable entities must comply with the last requirement of Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. Following receipt of the report, the Commission would determine whether further action is necessary.

    III. Information Collection Statement

    52. The collection of information contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.57 OMB's regulations require review and approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.58 Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the information collection requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

    57 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) (2012).

    58 5 CFR part 1320 (2017).

    53. We solicit comments on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks that any revised burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be supported by sufficient detail to understand how the estimates are generated.

    54. The Commission proposes to approve proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, which would replace currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1. When compared to Reliability Standard TPL-007-1, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 maintains the current information collection requirements, modifies existing Requirement R7 and adds new requirements in Requirements R8 through R12.

    55. Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 includes new corrective action plan development and implementation deadlines in Requirement R7, new supplemental GMD vulnerability and transformer thermal impact assessments in Requirements R8 through R10, and requirements for applicable entities to gather magnetometer and GIC monitored data in Requirements R11 and R12. Deadlines in Requirement R7 for the development and implementation of corrective action plans would only change the timeline of such documentation and are not expected to revise the burden to applicable entities. The burden estimates for new Requirements R8 through R10 are expected to be similar to the burden estimates for Requirements R4 through R6 in currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 due to the closely-mirrored requirements.59 The Commission expects that only 25 percent or fewer of transmission owners and generator owners would have to complete a supplemental transformer thermal impact assessment per Requirement R10. Requirements R11 and R12 require applicable entities to have a process to collect GIC and magnetometer data from meters in planning coordinator planning areas.

    59 NERC Petition at 15-17.

    Public Reporting Burden: The burden and cost estimates below are based on the changes to the reporting and recordkeeping burden imposed by proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2. Our estimates for the number of respondents are based on the NERC Compliance Registry as of 3/9/2018, which indicates there are 183 entities registered as transmission planner (TP), 65 planning coordinators (PC), 330 transmission owners (TO), 944 generator owners (GO) within the United States. However, due to significant overlap, the total number of unique affected entities (i.e., entities registered as a transmission planner, planning coordinator, transmission owner or generator owner, or some combination of these functional entities) is 1,130 entities. This includes 188 entities that are registered as a transmission planner or planning coordinator (applicability for Requirements R7 to R9 and R11 to R12), and 1,119 entities registered as a transmission or generation owner (applicability for Requirement R10). Given the assumption above, there is an expectation that at most only 25 percent of the 1,119 entities (or 280 entities) will have to complete compliance activities for Requirement R10. The estimated burden and cost are as follow.60

    60 Hourly costs are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) figures for May 2017 (Sector 22, Utilities) for wages (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits for December 2017 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). We estimate that an Electrical Engineer (NAICS code 17-2071) would perform the functions associated with reporting requirements, at an average hourly cost (for wages and benefits) of $66.90. The functions associated with recordkeeping requirements, we estimate, would be performed by a File Clerk (NAICS code 43-4071) at an average hourly cost of $32.04 for wages and benefits.

    The estimated burden and cost are in addition to the burden and cost that are associated with the existing requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 (and in the current OMB-approved inventory), which would continue under proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2.

    FERC-725N, Changes Proposed in NOPR in Docket No. RM18-8 61 62 Requirement (R) Number and
  • type of
  • respondents
  • Annual number
  • of responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • and cost per
  • response
  • Total annual burden hours and total
  • annual cost
  • (rounded)
  • Cost per
  • respondent ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) × (2) = (3) (4) (3) × (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) R1 through R6 No change No change No change No change No change No change. R7 188
  • (PC and TP)
  • 1/5 (once for every five year study) 37.6 Rep. 5 hrs., $334.5; RK 5 hrs., $160.2 Rep. 188 hrs.,$12,577; RK 188 hrs., $6,023 Rep. 1 hr., $66.9; RK 1 hr., $32.04.
    R8 188
  • (PC and TP)
  • 1/5 (once for every five year study) 37.6 Rep., 27 hrs., $1,806.30;RK, 21 hrs., $672.84 Rep. 1,015 hrs., $67,917; RK 790 hrs., $25,299 Rep., 5.4 hrs., $361.26; RK 4.2 hrs., $134.57.
    R9 188
  • (PC and TP)
  • 1/5 (once for every five year study) 37.6 Rep. 9 hrs., $602.10
  • RK 7 hrs., $224.28
  • Rep. 338 hrs.; $22,639 RK 263 hrs., $8,432 Rep. 1.8 hrs., $120.42; RK 1.4 hrs., $44.85.
    R10 280
  • (25% of 1,119)
  • (GO and TO)
  • 1/5 (once for every five year study) 56 Rep. 22 hrs., $1,471.8;
  • RK 18 hrs. $576.72
  • Rep. 1,232 hrs., $82,421; RK 1,008 hrs., $32,296 Rep. ;4.4 hrs., $294.36; RK 3.6 hrs., $115.34.
    R11 188
  • (PC and TP)
  • 1 (on-going reporting) 188 Rep. 10 hrs., $669;
  • RK. 10 hrs., $320.40
  • Rep. 1,880 hrs., $125,772; RK 1,880 hrs., $60,235 Rep. 10 hrs., $669; RK 10 hrs., $320.40.
    R12 188
  • (PC and TP)
  • 1 (on-going reporting) 188 Rep. 10 hrs., $669
  • RK. hrs 320.4
  • Rep. 1,880 hrs. $125,772; RK 1,880 hrs., $60,235 Rep. 10 hrs., $669; RK 10 hrs., $320.40.
    Total Additional Hrs. and Cost (rounded), due to NOPR in RM18-8 Rep., 6,533
  • hrs., $437,057; RK 6,009
  • hrs., $192,528
  • Title: FERC-725N, Mandatory Reliability Standards: TPL Reliability Standards.

    61 Rep. = reporting requirements; RK = recordkeeping requirements.

    62 For each Reliability Standard, the Measure shows the acceptable evidence (Reporting Requirement) for the associated Requirement (R numbers), and the Compliance section details the related Recordkeeping Requirement.

    Action: Proposed revisions to an existing collection of information.

    OMB Control No: 1902-0264.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit, and not for profit institutions.

    Frequency of Responses:63 Every five years (for Requirement R7-R10), annually (for Requirement R11 and R12).

    63 The frequency of Requirements R1 through R6 in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 is unchanged from the existing requirements in Reliability Standard TPL-007-1.

    Necessity of the Information: Proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, if adopted, would implement the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards to better ensure the reliability of the nation's Bulk-Power System. Specifically, these requirements address the threat posed by GMD events to the Bulk-Power System and conform to the Commission's directives to modify Reliability Standard TPL-007-1 as directed in Order No. 830.

    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2, and made a determination that its action is necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA. The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information requirements.

    56. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

    Comments concerning the proposed collection of information and the associated burden estimate should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent electronically to the following email address: [email protected] Comments submitted to OMB should refer to FERC-725N and OMB Control No. 1902-0264.

    IV. Environmental Analysis

    57. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.64 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.65 The actions proposed here fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

    64 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    65 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii) (2017).

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    58. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 66 generally requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The definition of small business is provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR 121.201. The threshold for a small utility (using SBA's sub-sector 221) is based on the number of employees for a concern and its affiliates. As discussed above, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-007-2 would apply to a total of 1,130 unique planning coordinators, transmission planners, transmission owners, and generation owners.67 A small utility (and its affiliates) is defined as having no more than the following number of employees:

    66 5 U.S.C. 601-12 (2012).

    67 In the NERC Registry, there are approximately 65 PCs, 188 TPs, 944 GOs, and 330 TOs (in the United States), which will be affected by this NOPR. Because some entities serve in more than one role, these figures involve some double counting.

    • For planning coordinators, transmission planners, and transmission owners (NAICS code 221121, Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control), a maximum of 500 employees • for generator owners, a maximum of 750 employees.68

    68 The maximum number of employees for a generator owner (and its affiliates) to be “small” varies from 250 to 750 employees, depending on the type of generation (e.g., hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil fuel, wind). For this analysis, we use the most conservative threshold of 750 employees.

    59. The total cost to all entities (large and small) is $629,585 annually (or an average of $1,345.27 for each of the estimated 468 entities affected annually). For the estimated 280 generator owners and transmission owners affected annually, the average cost would be $409.70 per year. For the estimated 188 planning coordinators and transmission planners, the estimated average annual cost would be $2,738.84. The estimated annual cost to each affected entity varies from $409.70 to $2,738.84 and is not considered significant.

    60. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the proposals contained in this NOPR will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission seeks comment on this certification.

    VI. Comment Procedures

    61. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due July 23, 2018. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM18-8-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

    62. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.

    63. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    64. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

    VII. Document Availability

    65. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.

    66. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number, excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

    67. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued: May 17, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11001 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 [COE-2017-0011] James River, Skiffes Creek and Warwick River Surrounding Joint Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE-Eustis), Virginia; Restricted Areas and Danger Zones AGENCY:

    United States Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corps of Engineers is proposing to amend an existing permanent danger zone in the waters of the James River, Skiffes Creek and Warwick River in Newport News, Virginia. JBLE-Eustis contains a military port berthing numerous Army vessels and conducts exercises to include small craft testing and live fire training activities. The proposed amendment is necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with training and mission operations, and to protect government assets, missions, and the base population in general. The proposed amendment increases the restricted areas and creates danger zones surrounding the existing installation and firing ranges.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2017-0011, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number, COE-2017-0011, in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO-R (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number COE-2017-0011. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly to the Corps without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922, or Nicole Woodward, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Regulatory Branch, at 757-201-7122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers is proposing amendments to regulations in 33 CFR part 334 for the establishment of new restricted areas and danger zones, in the waters of the James River, Skiffes Creek and Warwick River in Newport News, Virginia. In a memorandum dated April 28, 2017, the Department of the Air Force requested that the Corps modify 33 CFR 334.280 to establish permanent restricted areas and danger zones. The proposed permanent restricted areas and danger zones are necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with training and mission operations, and to fulfill the current security needs of the Department of the Air Force to protect government assets, missions, and the base population in general at the facility. The proposed modification expands the restricted areas to surround JBLE-Eustis and establishes danger zones adjacent to the JBLE-Eustis firing ranges.

    Procedural Requirements a. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

    The Corps determined this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the proposed rules governing the restricted areas, which allow any vessel that needs to transit the restricted areas to do so if the operator of the vessel obtains permission from Commander, JBLE-Eustis, and/or other persons or agencies as he/she may designate.

    b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Corps certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels that intend to transit the restricted areas or danger zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in paragraph (a) above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. In addition, the restricted areas and danger zones are necessary to protect vessels and personnel assigned to JBLE-Eustis by implementing a waterside security program. They are also necessary to protect the public. Small entities can also utilize navigable waters outside of the restricted areas and danger zones. Small entities that need to transit the restricted areas and danger zones may do so as long as vessel operators obtain permission from the Commander, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, and/or other persons or agencies as he/she may designate. The restricted areas are necessary for security of JBLE-Eustis. The danger zones area necessary for protect the public from hazards associated with training and mission operations. Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the proposed restricted areas and danger zones would have practically no impact on the public, any anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. After considering the economic impacts of this restricted area and danger zone regulation on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered.

    d. Unfunded Mandates Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

    Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:

    PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

    2. Revise § 334.280 to read as follows:
    § 334.280 James River, Skiffes Creek and Warwick River surrounding Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia; restricted areas and danger zones.

    (a) The areas. The datum for the coordinates for the restricted areas and danger zones described in this section is NAD-83.

    (1) Army Training and Small Craft Testing Area (restricted area). Beginning on the shore at latitude 37°09′54″ N, longitude 76°36′25″ W, thence westerly to latitude 37°09′53″ N, longitude 76°36′59″ W, thence westerly to latitude 37°09′50″ N, longitude 76°37′45″ W, thence southerly to latitude 37°09′00″ N, longitude 76°38′05″ W, thence southerly to latitude 37°08′22″ N, longitude 76°37′55″ W, thence due east to the shore at latitude 37°08′22″ N, longitude 76°37′20″ W, thence northerly following the shoreline to the point of beginning.

    (2) 3rd Port Facility (restricted area). An area surrounding the 3rd Port facility, Fort Eustis, beginning at a point on the shore line at latitude 37°09′54″ N, longitude 76°36′25″ W, thence northerly, following the shoreline to latitude 37°10′29″ N, longitude 76°36′06″ W, thence westerly to latitude 37°10′33″ N, longitude 76°36′20″ W, thence following the shoreline to latitude 37°10′13″ N, longitude 76°36′42″ W, thence southerly to latitude 37°09′53″ N, longitude 76°36′59″ W, thence to the point of beginning.

    (3) Warwick River and any tributaries, creeks, estuaries, tidal areas, to include Butlers Gut and Jail Creek (restricted area). All navigable waters of the United States as defined in 33 CFR part 329 within the boundaries of Fort Eustis, westerly of a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from the shoreline at latitude 37°09′47″ N, longitude 76°33′52″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the westerly mean low waterline of Warwick River, thence to a point on the installation boundary at latitude 37°04′35″ N, longitude 76°33′19″ W.

    (4) James River and any tributaries, creeks, estuaries, tidal areas, to include Nells Creek, Locust Neck Creek, Dudleys Creek, Morrisons Creek, Morleys Gut, Blows Creek, and Milstead Creek (restricted area). Navigable waters of the United States as defined at 33 CFR part 329 within the boundaries of Fort Eustis, north/north-easterly of a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from the shoreline at latitude 37°04′35″ N, longitude 76°33′19″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the northeasterly mean low waterline of the James River, thence to a point on the installation boundary at latitude 37°10′03″ N, longitude 76°36′26″ W at a point at the mouth of Skiffes Creek.

    (5) Skiffes Creek and any tributaries, creeks, estuaries, tidal areas, to include Baileys Creek (restricted area). All navigable waters of the United States as defined at 33 CFR part 329 within the boundaries of Fort Eustis, easterly of a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from a point on the installation boundary at latitude 37°10′03″ N, longitude 76°36′26″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the northeasterly mean low waterline of Skiffes Creek, thence to a point at latitude 37°10′30″ N, longitude 76°36′07″ W within Skiffes Creek at the centerline of an unnamed tributary off Skiffes Creek; thence, with the centerline meanders of the said centerline of the unnamed tributary following the meanders of the installation boundary; thence to a point on the installation boundary at latitude 37°10′36″ N, longitude 76°36′02″ W.

    (6) Danger Zone Warwick River. Navigable waters of the United States as defined at 33 CFR part 329 that encroach upon the boundaries of the Danger Zone of Fort Eustis, westerly of a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from the installation boundary at latitude 37°06′44″ N, longitude 76°34′04″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′44″ N, longitude 76°34′02″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′35″ N, longitude 76°33′56″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′28″ N, longitude 76°33′57″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′15″ N, longitude 76°33′30″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°05′43″ N, longitude 76°33′13″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°05′33″ N, longitude 76°33′17″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°05′13″ N, longitude 76°32′53″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°05′03″ N, longitude 76°33′09″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the southwesterly mean low waterline of Warwick River, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′52″ N, longitude 76°33′13″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′49″ N, longitude 76°33′11″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′43″ N, longitude 76°33′28″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the southwesterly mean low waterline of Warwick River, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′35″ N, longitude 76°33′19″ W.

    (7) Danger Zone James River. Navigable waters of the United States as defined at 33 CFR part 329 that encroach upon the boundaries of the Danger Zone of Fort Eustis, north/north-easterly of a line connecting the following coordinates: Commencing from the installation boundary at latitude 37°04′35″ N, longitude 76°33′19″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the easterly mean low waterline of James River to a point at latitude 37°04′39″ N, longitude 76°33′39″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′33″ N, longitude 76°34′15″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′52″ N, longitude 76°34′19″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′52″ N, longitude 76°34′18″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°04′60″ N, longitude 76°34′20″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°05′19″ N, longitude 76°34′51″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°05′53″ N, longitude 76°35′00″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′03″ N, longitude 76°35′08″ W, thence following the meanders of the installation boundary along the easterly mean low waterline of James River, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′40″ N, longitude 76°35′52″ W, thence to a point at latitude 37°06′35″ N, longitude 76°36′19″ W, thence to a point on the installation boundary at latitude 37°06′50″ N, longitude 76°36′21″ W.

    (b) The regulations. (1) For the restricted areas defined in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section:

    (i) All vessels will contact the 3rd Port Harbor Master on marine channel 12 or 68 prior to entering or transiting these restricted areas.

    (ii) The passage of fishing vessels to or from authorized traps, or the transit of commercial vessels, will be coordinated with the 3rd Port Harbor Master on marine channel 12 or 68.

    (iii) The harvesting and cultivation of oyster beds or the setting of fish traps within these restricted areas will be allowed provided the commercial fisherman coordinate access to these areas with the 3rd Port Harbor Master on marine channel 12 or 68.

    (iv) The Commander, Joint Base Langley-Eustis will, to the extent possible, give public notice from time to time through local news media and the Coast Guard's Local Notice to Mariners of the schedule of intended Department of Defense use of the restricted areas.

    (2) For the restricted areas defined in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of this section:

    (i) Entry into these areas is for official government purposes only, or as authorized by the Commander, Joint Base Langley-Eustis.

    (ii) Entry will be coordinated and conducted in accordance with the policies and procedures established by the Commander, Joint Base Langley-Eustis.

    (3) For the danger zones defined in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of this section:

    (i) Persons, vessels or other craft shall not enter or remain in the danger zone when firing is or will soon be in progress unless authorized to do so by the enforcing agency.

    (ii) Advance notice of the schedule of small arms firing will be provided via the Joint Base Langley-Eustis web page.

    (iii) All projectiles will be fired to land within the impact area on the Fort Eustis peninsula. Neither the Department of the Army nor the Department of the Air Force will be responsible for damages by such projectiles to nets, traps, buoys, pots, fishpounds, stakes, or other equipment which may be located within these danger zones.

    (c) Enforcement. The regulations of this section shall be enforced by the Commander, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, and such agencies as the commander may designate.

    Dated: May 11, 2018. Thomas P. Smith, Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11016 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 [COE-2017-0006] Little Creek Harbor, Fisherman's Cove, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Little Creek, Virginia, Restricted Areas AGENCY:

    United States Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corps of Engineers is proposing to establish a restricted area in the waters of Fisherman's Cove and Little Creek Harbor at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Little Creek (JEBLCFS) in Virginia Beach, Virginia. JEBLCFS is the homeport of numerous ships, small boats and special operational units. The proposed amendment is necessary to better protect vessels and personnel assigned to JEBLCFS by implementing a waterside security program. The proposed amendment establishes the restricted area waters within the boundaries of the existing installation and in the entry channel into the harbor.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2017-0006, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number, COE-2017-0006, in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO-R (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number COE-2017-0006. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly to the Corps without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922, or Ms. Nicole Woodward, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Regulatory Branch, at 757-201-7122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers is proposing amendments to regulations in 33 CFR part 334 for the establishment of a new restricted area in the waters of Fisherman's Cove and Little Creek at JEBLCFS in Virginia Beach, Virginia. In a memorandum dated May 1, 2017, the Department of the Navy requested that the Corps modify 33 CFR 334 to establish a permanent restricted area. The proposed amendment is necessary to better protect vessels and personnel assigned to JEBLCFS by implementing a waterside security program. The request is in response to the possible risks associated with the potential for unfettered access to the harbor and the close proximity of a civilian marina to naval assets. The proposed amendment establishes the restricted area in waters within the boundary of the existing installation and in the entry channel into the harbor.

    Procedural Requirements a. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Corps has made a determination this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulatory action determination is based on the proposed rules governing the restricted areas, which allow any vessel that needs to transit the restricted areas to do so if the operator of the vessel obtains permission from Little Creek Port Control or the Commanding Officer, JEBLCFS, and/or other persons or agencies as he/she may designate.

    b. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Corps certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels that intend to transit the restricted areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in paragraph (a) above this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. In addition, the restricted areas are necessary to protect vessels and personnel assigned to JEBLCFS by implementing a waterside security program. Small entities can also utilize navigable waters outside of the restricted areas. Small entities that need to transit the restricted areas may do so as long as the operator of the vessel obtains permission from Little Creek Port Control or the Commanding Officer, JEBLCFS, and/or other persons or agencies as he/she may designate. The restricted areas are necessary for security of JEBLCFS. Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of the proposed restricted areas would have practically no impact on the public, any anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. After considering the economic impacts of this restricted area regulation on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered.

    d. Unfunded Mandates Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

    Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:

    PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

    2. Add § 334.305 to read as follows:
    § 334.305 Little Creek Harbor, Fisherman's Cove, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Little Creek, Virginia, Restricted Areas.

    (a) The Little Creek Restricted Areas. The Little Creek Restricted Areas consist of two distinct areas: The Outer Harbor Restricted Area and the Inner Harbor Restricted Area. The datum for the coordinates in this section is NAD-83.

    (1) The Outer Harbor Restricted Area. The waters within an area beginning at a point on shore at latitude 36°55′57.7″ N, longitude 76°10′35″ W, thence southwesterly to a point on the opposite shore at latitude 36°55′53″ N, longitude 76°10′44″ W, thence southerly to latitude 36°55′21.2″ N, longitude 76°10′42″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 36°55′17.8″ N, longitude 76°10′49″ W, thence northwesterly to a point in Fisherman′s Cove at latitude 36°55′22″ N, longitude 76°11′15.5″ W, thence southerly to latitude 36°55′19.2″ N, longitude 76°11′16″ W, thence easterly along the southern shoreline of Fisherman's Cove, to latitude 36°55′15.8″ N, longitude 76°10′58.8″ W, and ending at latitude 36°55′18″ N, longitude 76°10′30″ W, thence to the point of origin.

    (2) The Inner Harbor Restricted Area. The waters within Little Creek Harbor south of a line beginning at latitude 36°55′15.8″ N, longitude 76°10′58.8″ W, and ending at latitude 36°55′19.3″ N, longitude 76°10′29.5″ W.

    (b) The Regulations. (1) All vessels intending to transit inbound/outbound of the Little Creek Restricted Areas shall notify the Little Creek Port Control of their destination and intentions.

    (2) The Outer Harbor Restricted Area. All privately owned vessels properly registered and bearing identification in accordance with Federal and/or State laws and regulations, and all Government owned vessels (public vessels) may enter or exit the waters described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at any time and transit inbound/outbound of the marked dredged channel leading to Little Creek Harbor between jetties 8 miles westward of Cape Henry Light. All vessels entering or exiting the channel must notify Little Creek Port Control using VHF-FM channel 12, stating their destination/intention. All vessels transiting inbound/outbound of the channel except as noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall proceed at speeds commensurate with minimum wake unless approved by Little Creek Port Control

    (3) The Inner Harbor Restricted Area. Vessels or persons intending to transit inbound/outbound within the waters described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall request permission from Little Creek Port Control with the exception of those listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. This permission shall suffice for Outer Harbor notification. The Inner Harbor Restricted Area is restricted to those privately owned vessels or persons calling upon the commercial/private piers located within the Inner Harbor and Government owned vessels (public vessels) transiting to and from U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard facilities, and authorized Department of Defense patrons of the U.S. Navy recreational marina. No other vessels or persons may enter or exit this area unless specific authorization is granted by Commanding Officer, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, and/or other persons or agencies as he/she may designate.

    (4) All vessels or persons transiting inbound/outbound of the Outer and Inner Harbor restricted areas are subject to all applicable federal and state laws including laws or regulations designed to protect the naval facility, and persons or vessels assigned therein. Federal and State law enforcement officials may at any time take action to ensure compliance with their respective laws. In addition, this regulation authorizes Navy security personnel, designated by Commander, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story or persons authorized to act in his/her behalf, the authority to ascertain the identity and intent of any vessels and/or persons transiting the restricted area that indicate by way of appearance or action they are a possible threat to government assets. If a determination is made that the vessel and/or persons are a threat to government assets located within the restricted area, Navy security units may take actions as provided by law or regulation that are deemed necessary to protect government personnel and assets located within the restricted area.

    (c) Enforcement. (1) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story and/or persons or agencies as he/she may designate.

    (2) Federal and State Law enforcement vessels and personnel may enter anywhere in the restricted area at any time in the operation of their statutory missions or to enforce their respective laws.

    (3) Nothing in this regulation is deemed to preempt 33 CFR 165.501.

    (4) Vessels or persons calling upon the commercial/private piers located within the Inner Harbor with proper identification and clearance will be allowed entry subject to the same provisions described in paragraph (b) of this section. Commander, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story reserves the right to temporarily deny entry in emergency situations, elevated Department of Defense Force Protection conditions in the Harbor, or other safety of navigation constraints.

    Dated: May 11, 2018. Thomas P. Smith, Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11017 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1231099BPP0] RIN 1018-BB73 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2018-19 Season AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter, Service or we) proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on the proposed regulations by June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028.

    U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of the Department of the Interior's (DOI's) retrospective regulatory review, we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and will provide dates much earlier than was possible under the old process. This will facilitate planning for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the development of the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we are using a new schedule for establishing our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will combine the current early- and late-season regulatory actions into a single process, based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and harvest strategies, to establish migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we have used for many years. Under the new process, we will develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We will finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer. This rulemaking is part of that process.

    We developed the guidelines for establishing special migratory bird hunting regulations for Indian Tribes in response to tribal requests for recognition of their reserved hunting rights and, for some Tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters on their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:

    (1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters, with hunting by nontribal hunters on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);

    (2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of the usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and

    (3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.

    In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10 to September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Treaty). The guidelines apply to those Tribes having recognized reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and on ceded lands. They also apply to establishing migratory bird hunting regulations for nontribal hunters on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where Tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting or where the Tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal hunters on lands owned by non-Indians within the reservation.

    Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to Service approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations governing hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we encourage the Tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will consult with a Tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the affected States where Tribes wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. Because of past questions regarding interpretation of what events trigger the consultation process, as well as who initiates it, we provide the following clarification.

    We routinely provide copies of Federal Register publications pertaining to migratory bird management to all State Directors, Tribes, and other interested parties. It is the responsibility of the States, Tribes, and others to notify us of any concern regarding any feature(s) of any regulations. When we receive such notification, we will initiate consultation.

    Our guidelines provide for the continued harvest of waterfowl and other migratory game birds by tribal members on reservations where such harvest has been a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season defined by the Treaty, and does not adversely affect the status of the migratory bird resource. Before developing the guidelines, we reviewed available information on the current status of migratory bird populations, reviewed the current status of migratory bird hunting on Federal Indian reservations, and evaluated the potential impact of such guidelines on migratory birds. We concluded that the impact of migratory bird harvest by tribal members hunting on their reservations is minimal.

    One area of interest in Indian migratory bird hunting regulations relates to hunting seasons for nontribal hunters on dates that are within Federal frameworks, but which are different from those established by the State(s) where the reservation is located. A large influx of nontribal hunters onto a reservation at a time when the season is closed in the surrounding State(s) could result in adverse population impacts on one or more migratory bird species. The guidelines make this unlikely, and we may modify regulations or establish experimental special hunts, after evaluation of information obtained by the Tribes.

    We conclude the guidelines provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian Tribes while ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Further, the guidelines should not be viewed as inflexible. In this regard, we note that they have been employed successfully since 1985. We conclude they have been tested adequately, and, therefore, we made them final beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (53 FR 31612, August 18, 1988). We should stress here, however, that use of the guidelines is not mandatory, and no action is required if a Tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located.

    Regulations Schedule for 2018

    On August 3, 2017, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (82 FR 36308). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2018-19 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in an August 3, 2017, proposed rule.

    On October 3, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 46011) a second document providing supplemental proposals for migratory bird hunting regulations. The October 3 supplement also provided detailed information on the 2018-19 regulatory schedule and re-announced the SRC and Flyway Council meetings.

    On October 17-18, 2017, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2018-19 regulations for these species.

    On February 2, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 4964) the proposed frameworks for the 2018-19 season migratory bird hunting regulations.

    Population Status and Harvest

    Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our website at https://www.fws.gov/birds/surveys-and-data/reports-and-publications/population-status.php.

    We used the following reports: Adaptive Harvest Management, 2017 Hunting Season (September, 2017); American Woodcock Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017); Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017); Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Hunting Seasons (August, 2017); Mourning Dove Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017); Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations, 2017 (August, 2017); and Waterfowl Population Status, 2017 (August, 2017).

    Hunting Season Proposals From Indian Tribes and Organizations

    For the 2018-19 hunting season, we received requests from 23 Tribes and Indian organizations. In this proposed rule, we respond to these 23 requests and also evaluate anticipated requests for 6 Tribes from whom we usually hear but from whom we have not yet received proposals. We actively solicit regulatory proposals from other tribal groups that are interested in working cooperatively for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory game birds. We encourage Tribes to work with us to develop agreements for management of migratory bird resources on tribal lands.

    The proposed frameworks for flyway regulations were published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2018 (83 FR 4964). As previously discussed, no action is required by Tribes wishing to observe migratory bird hunting regulations established by the State(s) where they are located. The proposed regulations for the 29 Tribes that meet the established criteria or have recently proposed seasons are shown below.

    (a) Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Flathead Indian Reservation, Pablo, Montana (Tribal and Nontribal Hunters)

    For the past several years, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the State of Montana have entered into cooperative agreements for the regulation of hunting on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The State and the Tribes are currently operating under a cooperative agreement signed in 1990, which addresses fishing and hunting management and regulation issues of mutual concern. This agreement enables all hunters to utilize waterfowl hunting opportunities on the reservation.

    As in the past, tribal regulations for nontribal hunters would be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Goose, duck, and coot season dates would also be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Shooting hours for waterfowl hunting on the Flathead Reservation are sunrise to sunset. Steel shot or other federally approved nontoxic shots are the only legal shotgun loads on the reservation for waterfowl or other game birds.

    For tribal members, the Tribe proposes outside frameworks for ducks and geese of September 1, 2018, through March 9, 2019. Daily bag and possession limits were not proposed for tribal members.

    The requested season dates and bag limits are similar to past regulations. Harvest levels are not expected to change significantly. Standardized check station data from the 1993-94 and 1994-95 hunting seasons indicated no significant changes in harvest levels and that the large majority of the harvest is by nontribal hunters.

    We propose to approve the Tribes' request for special migratory bird regulations for the 2018-19 hunting season.

    (b) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Cloquet, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only)

    Since 1996, the Service and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have cooperated to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members. The Fond du Lac's proposal covers land set apart for the band under the Treaties of 1837 and 1854 in northeastern and east-central Minnesota and the Band's Reservation near Duluth.

    The band's proposal for 2018-19 is essentially the same as that approved last year. The proposed 2018-19 waterfowl hunting season regulations for Fond du Lac are as follows:

    Ducks A. 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 8 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 18 ducks, including no more than 12 mallards (only 3 of which may be hens), 9 black ducks, 9 scaup, 9 wood ducks, 9 redheads, 9 pintails, and 9 canvasbacks.

    B. Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 12 ducks, including no more than 8 mallards (only 2 of which may be hens), 6 black ducks, 6 scaup, 6 redheads, 6 pintails, 6 wood ducks, and 6 canvasbacks.

    Mergansers A. 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 8 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15 mergansers, including no more than 6 hooded mergansers.

    B. Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 mergansers, including no more than 4 hooded mergansers.

    Canada Geese: All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 geese.

    Sandhill Cranes: 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories Only

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Two sandhill cranes. A crane carcass tag is required prior to hunting.

    Coots and Common Moorhens (Common Gallinules) A. 1854 and 1837 Ceded Territories

    Season Dates: Begin September 8 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens, singly or in the aggregate.

    B. Reservation

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens, singly or in the aggregate.

    Sora and Virginia Rails: All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 25 sora and Virginia rails, singly or in the aggregate.

    Common Snipe: All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Eight common snipe.

    Woodcock: All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: Three woodcock.

    Mourning Dove: All Areas

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 30, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 30 mourning doves.

    The following general conditions apply:

    1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License.

    2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.

    3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting.

    4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas.

    5. There are no possession limits for migratory birds. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.

    The band anticipates harvest will be fewer than 500 ducks and geese, and fewer than 10 sandhill cranes.

    We propose to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.

    (c) Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Suttons Bay, Michigan (Tribal Members Only)

    In the 1995-96 migratory bird seasons, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Service first cooperated to establish special regulations for waterfowl. The Grand Traverse Band is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located on the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay in Leelanau County, Michigan. The Grand Traverse Band is a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season.

    For the 2018-19 season, the Tribe requests that the tribal member duck season run from September 1, 2018, through January 20, 2019. A daily bag limit of 35 would include no more than 8 pintail, 4 canvasback, 5 hooded merganser, 8 black ducks, 8 wood ducks, 8 redheads, and 20 mallards (only 10 of which may be hens).

    For Canada and snow geese, the Tribe proposes a September 1, 2018, through February 15, 2019, season. For white-fronted geese and brant, the Tribe proposes a September 20 through December 30, 2018, season. The daily bag limit for Canada and snow geese would be 15, and the daily bag limit for white-fronted geese and including brant would be 5 birds. We further note that, based on available data (of major goose migration routes), it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population will be harvested by the Tribe.

    For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2018, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed five birds. For mourning doves, snipe, and rails, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2018, season. The daily bag limit would be 15 mourning dove, 10 snipe, and 10 rail.

    For sandhill crane, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2018, season. The daily bag limit would be 2 birds and a season limit of 10 birds.

    For snipe and rails, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2018, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 birds per species.

    Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The Tribe proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. Harvest surveys from the 2013-14 hunting season indicated that approximately 30 tribal hunters harvested an estimated 100 ducks and 45 Canada geese.

    We propose to approve the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting proposal.

    (d) Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only)

    Since 1985, various bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians have exercised judicially recognized, off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds in Wisconsin. The specific regulations were established by the Service in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) (GLIFWC is an intertribal agency exercising delegated natural resource management and regulatory authority from its member Tribes in portions of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota). Beginning in 1986, a Tribal season on ceded lands in the western portion of the Michigan Upper Peninsula was developed in coordination with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We have approved regulations for Tribal members in both Michigan and Wisconsin since the 1986-87 hunting season. In 1987, GLIFWC requested, and we approved, regulations to permit Tribal members to hunt on ceded lands in Minnesota, as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin. The States of Michigan and Wisconsin originally concurred with the regulations, although both Wisconsin and Michigan have raised various concerns over the years. Minnesota did not concur with the original regulations, stressing that the State would not recognize Chippewa Indian hunting rights in Minnesota's treaty area until a court with jurisdiction over the State acknowledges and defines the extent of these rights. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the existence of the tribes' treaty reserved rights in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 199 S. Ct. 1187 (1999).

    We acknowledge all of the States' concerns, but point out that the U.S. Government has recognized the Indian treaty reserved rights, and that acceptable hunting regulations have been successfully implemented in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Consequently, in view of the above, we have approved regulations since the 1987-88 hunting season on ceded lands in all three States. In fact, this recognition of the principle of treaty reserved rights for band members to hunt and fish was pivotal in our decision to approve a 1991-92 season for the 1836 ceded area in Michigan. Since then, in the 2007 Consent Decree, the 1836 Treaty Tribes' and Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment established court-approved regulations pertaining to off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds.

    For 2018, GLIFWC proposes off-reservation special migratory bird hunting regulations on behalf of the member Tribes of the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of GLIFWC (for the 1837 and 1842 Treaty areas in Wisconsin and Michigan), the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and the six Wisconsin Bands (for the 1837 Treaty area in Minnesota), and the Bay Mills Indian Community (for the 1836 Treaty area in Michigan). Member Tribes of the Task Force are: the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Band), all in Wisconsin; the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Minnesota; and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan.

    Last year, GLIFWC proposed, and we approved, four regulatory changes from previous years' regulations for the 2017-18 hunting season (83 FR 5037, February 5, 2018). First, in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, GLIFWC proposed allowing up to 50 Tribal hunters to use electronic calls for any open season under a limited and experimental design under a special Tribal permit. In addition to obtaining a special permit, the Tribal hunter would be required to complete and submit a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls were used. Second, GLIFWC proposed allowing the take of migratory birds (primarily waterfowl) with the use of hand-held nets, hand-held snares, and/or capture of birds by hand in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. This use of nets, snares, or hand-capture included the take of birds at night. GLIFWC proposed that both the use of electronic calls and the use of nets, snares, or hand-capture be considered 3-year experimental seasons. Third, GLIFWC proposed moving the opening of the current swan season to September 1 rather than November 1 in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. However, the trumpeter swan quota remained at 10 swans. Lastly, GLIFWC proposed implementing a sandhill crane hunting season in the 1836 Treaty Area. While we proposed approving all four of GLIFWC's proposals in our August 27, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 39716), in our February 5, 2018, final rule (83 FR 5037), we inadvertently failed to mention or approve the proposals dealing with the swan season and the sandhill crane season. We propose to approve those two specific proposals again this year. Further, due to the timing of the final rule, GLIFWC was not able to actually implement any of the regulatory changes approved last hunting season. Thus, no data were collected for these regulatory changes from last year. As such, since several of these approved regulatory changes were designated as experimental for a period of 3 years, we propose to extend these experiments by 1 additional year in order to have 3 years of actual data collection. This proposed extension is similar to those we have granted to Flyways and States in conducting their experimental seasons. For more specific discussion on these regulatory changes, we refer the reader to the August 27, 2017, and February 5, 2018, rules (82 FR 39716 and 83 FR 5037).

    Under GLIFWC's proposed 2018-19 regulations, GLIFWC expects total ceded territory harvest to be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 ducks, 400 to 600 geese, 20 sandhill cranes, and 20 swans, which, with the exception of ducks, is roughly similar to anticipated levels in previous years for those species for which seasons were established. GLIFWC further anticipates that tribal harvest will remain low given the small number of tribal hunters and the limited opportunity to harvest more than a small number of birds on most hunting trips.

    Recent GLIFWC harvest surveys (1996-98, 2001, 2004, 2007-08, 2011, 2012, and 2015) indicate that tribal off-reservation waterfowl harvest has averaged fewer than 1,100 ducks and 250 geese annually. In the latest survey year for which we have specific results (2015), an estimated 297 hunters hunted a total of 2,190 days and harvested 2,727 ducks (1.2 ducks per day) and 639 geese. The greatest number of ducks reported harvested in a single day was 10, while the highest number of geese reported taken on a single outing was 6. Mallards, wood ducks, and blue-winged teal composed about 72 percent of the duck harvest. Two sandhill cranes were reported harvested in each of the first three Tribal sandhill crane seasons, with 3 reported harvested in 2015. No swans have been harvested. About 81 percent of the estimated hunting days took place in Wisconsin, with the remainder occurring in Michigan. As in past years, most hunting took place in or near counties with reservations. Overall, analysis of hunter survey data over 1996-2015 indicates a general downward, or flat, trend in both harvest and hunter participation

    The proposed 2018-19 waterfowl hunting season regulations apply to all treaty areas (except where noted) for GLIFWC as follows:

    Ducks

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 50 ducks in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Area; 30 ducks in the 1836 Treaty Area.

    Mergansers

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 mergansers.

    Geese

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018. In addition, any portion of the ceded territory that is open to State-licensed hunters for goose hunting outside of these dates will also be open concurrently for tribal members.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 geese in aggregate.

    Other Migratory Birds A. Coots and Common Moorhens (Common Gallinules)

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 20 coots and common moorhens (common gallinules), singly or in the aggregate.

    B. Sora and Virginia Rails

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag and Possession Limits: 20, singly, or in the aggregate, 25.

    C. Common Snipe:

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 16 common snipe.

    D. Woodcock

    Season Dates: Begin September 4 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 10 woodcock.

    E. Mourning Dove: 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories Only

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end November 29, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 15 mourning doves.

    F. Sandhill Cranes

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 2 cranes and no seasonal bag limit in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty areas; 1 crane with a seasonal bag limit of 3 in the 1836 Treaty area.

    G. Swans: 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories Only

    Season Dates: Begin September 1 and end December 31, 2018.

    Daily Bag Limit: 2 swans. All harvested swans must be registered by presenting the fully-feathered carcass to a tribal registration station or GLIFWC warden. If the total number of trumpeter swans harvested reaches 10, the swan season will be closed by emergency tribal rule.

    General Conditions

    A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit.

    B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the Lac Courte Oreilles v. State of Wisconsin (Voigt) and Mille Lacs Band v. State of Minnesota cases. Chapter 10 in each of these model codes regulates ceded territory migratory bird hunting. Both versions of Chapter 10 parallel Federal requirements as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting. They also automatically incorporate by reference the Federal migratory bird regulations adopted in response to this proposal.

    C. Particular regulations of note include:

    1. Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.

    2. Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.

    3. There are no possession limits, with the exception of 2 swans (in the aggregate) and 25 rails (in the aggregate). For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as taken on reservation lands. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit.

    4. The baiting restrictions included in the respective section 10.05(2)(h) of the model ceded territory conservation codes will be amended to include language which parallels that in place for nontribal members as published at 64 FR 29799, June 3, 1999.

    5. There are no shell limit restrictions.

    6. Hunting hours are from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset, except that, within the 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories, hunters may use non-mechanical nets or snares that are operated by hand to take those birds subject to an open hunting season at any time (see #8 below for further information). Hunters shall also be permitted to capture, without the aid of other devices (i.e., by hand) and immediately kill birds subject to an open season, regardless of the time of day.

    7. An experimental application of electronic calls will be implemented in the 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories. Up to 50 tribal hunters will be allowed to use electronic calls. Individuals using these devices will be required to obtain a special permit; they will be required to complete a hunt diary for each hunt where electronic calls are used; and they will be required to submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain an permit for the following year. Required information will include the date, time, and location of the hunt; number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; if other hunters were in the area, any interactions with other hunters; and other information deemed appropriate. Diary results will be summarized and documented in a Commission report, which will be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, this experimental application would be replicated for 3 years (through the 2020-21 season), after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    8. Within the 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories, tribal members will be allowed to use non-mechanical, hand-operated nets (i.e., throw/cast nets or hand-held nets typically used to land fish) and hand-operated snares, and may chase and capture migratory birds without the aid of hunting devices (i.e., by hand). At this time, non-attended nets or snares shall not be authorized under this regulation. Tribal members using nets or snares to take migratory birds, or taking birds by hand, will be required to obtain a special permit; they will be required to complete a hunt diary for each hunt where these methods are used; and they will be required to submit the hunt diary to the Commission within 2 weeks of the end of the season in order to be eligible to obtain a permit to net migratory birds for the following year. Required information will include the date, time, and location of the hunt; number of hunters; the number of each species harvested per hunting event; and other information deemed appropriate. Diary results will be summarized and documented in a Commission report, which will be submitted to the Service. Barring unforeseen results, this experimental application would be replicated for 3 years (through the 2020-21 season), after which a full evaluation would be completed.

    We propose to approve the above GLIFWC regulations for the 2018-19 hunting season.

    (e) Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Indian Reservation, Dulce, New Mexico (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters)

    The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has had special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers since the 1986-87 hunting season. The Tribe owns all lands on the reservation and has recognized full wildlife management authority. In general, the proposed seasons would be more conservative than allowed by the Federal frameworks of last season and by States in the Pacific Flyway.

    The Tribe proposes a 2018-19 waterfowl and Canada goose season beginning October 6, 2018, and a closing date of November 30, 2018. Daily bag and possession limits for waterfowl would be the same as Pacific Flyway States. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit for Canada geese of two. Other regulations specific to the Pacific Flyway guidelines for New Mexico would be in effect.

    During the Jicarilla Game and Fish Department's 2016-17 season, estimated duck harvest was 63. The species composition included mainly mallards, gadwall, American wigeon, and teal. The estimated harvest of geese was 0 birds.

    The proposed regulations are essentially the same as were established last year. The Tribe anticipates the maximum 2018-19 waterfowl harvest would be around 300 ducks and 30 geese.

    We propose to approve the Tribe's requested 2018-19 hunting seasons.

    (f) Kalispel Tribe, Kalispel Reservation, Usk, Washington (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters)

    The Kalispel Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1914, and currently comprises approximately 4,600 acres. The Tribe owns all Reservation land and has full management authority. The Kalispel Tribe has a fully developed wildlife program with hunting and fishing codes. The Tribe enjoys excellent wildlife management relations with the State. The Tribe and the State have an operational memorandum of understanding with emphasis on fisheries but also for wildlife.

    The nontribal member seasons described below pertain to a 176-acre waterfowl management unit and 800 acres of reservation land with a guide for waterfowl hunting. The Tribe is utilizing this opportunity to rehabilitate an area that needs protection because of past land use practices, as well as to provide additional waterfowl hunting in the area. Beginning in 1996, the requested regulations also included a proposal for Kalispel-member-only migratory bird hunting on Kalispel-ceded lands within Washington, Montana, and Idaho.

    For the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting seasons, the Kalispel Tribe proposes tribal and nontribal member waterfowl seasons. The Tribe requests that both duck and goose seasons open at the earliest possible date and close on the latest date under Federal frameworks.

    For nontribal hunters on Tribally managed lands, the Tribe requests the seasons open at the earliest possible date and remain open, for the maximum amount of open days. Specifically, the Tribe requests a season for ducks run September 15-16, 2018, September 22-23, 2018, and from October 1, 2018, to January 8, 2019. In that period, nontribal hunters would be allowed to hunt approximately 107 days. Hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Kalispel Tribe.

    For nontribal hunters on Tribally managed lands, the Tribe also requests a season for geese run September 15-16, 2018, September 22-23, 2018, and from October 1, 2018, to January 8, 2019. Total number of days should not exceed 107. Nontribal hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Tribe. Daily bag and possession limits would be the same as those for the State of Washington.

    The Tribe reports past nontribal harvest of 1.5 ducks per day. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be similar to last year, that is, fewer than 100 geese and 200 ducks.

    All other State and Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, such as use of nontoxic shot and possession of a signed migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp, would be required.

    For tribal members on Kalispel-ceded lands, the Kalispel Tribe proposes season dates for ducks of October 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019, and for geese of September 10, 2018, through January 31, 2019. Daily bag and possession limits would parallel those in the Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20.

    The Tribe reports that there was no tribal harvest. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be fewer than 200 birds for the season with fewer than 100 geese. Tribal members would be required to possess a signed Federal migratory bird stamp and a tribal ceded lands permit.

    We propose to approve the regulations requested by the Kalispel Tribe, since these dates conform to Federal flyway frameworks for the Pacific Flyway.

    (g) Klamath Tribe, Chiloquin, Oregon (Tribal Members Only)

    The Klamath Tribe currently has no reservation, per se. However, the Klamath Tribe has reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights within its former reservation boundary. This area of former reservation, granted to the Klamaths by the Treaty of 1864, is over 1 million acres. Tribal natural resource management authority is derived from the Treaty of 1864, and carried out cooperatively under the judicially enforced Consent Decree of 1981. The parties to this Consent Decree are the Federal Government, the State of Oregon, and the Klamath Tribe. The Klamath Indian Game Commission sets the seasons. The tribal biological staff and tribal regulatory enforcement officers monitor tribal harvest by frequent bag checks and hunter interviews.

    For the 2018-19 seasons, the Tribe requests proposed season dates of October 6, 2018, through January 31, 2019. Daily bag limits would be 9 for ducks, 9 for geese, and 9 for coot, with possession limits twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours would be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Steel shot is required.

    Based on the number of birds produced in the Klamath Basin, this year's harvest would be similar to last year's. Information on tribal harvest suggests that more than 70 percent of the annual goose harvest is local birds produced in the Klamath Basin.

    We propose to approve those 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (h) Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Cass Lake, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only)

    The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized Tribe located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce conservation regulations. The Service and the Tribe have cooperatively established migratory bird hunting regulations since 2000.

    For the 2018-19 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting on September 15 and ending December 31, 2018, and a goose season to run from September 1 through December 31, 2018. Daily bag limits for ducks would be 10, including no more than 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, and 5 black ducks. Daily bag limits for geese would be 10. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset.

    The annual harvest by tribal members on the Leech Lake Reservation is estimated at 250 to 500 birds.

    We propose to approve the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe's requested 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting season.

    (i) Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Manistee, Michigan (Tribal Members Only)

    The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (LRBOI) is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Manistee, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season. Ceded lands are located in Lake, Mason, Manistee, and Wexford Counties. The Band proposes regulations to govern the hunting of migratory birds by Tribal members within the 1836 Ceded Territory as well as on the Band's Reservation.

    We have not yet heard from the LRBOI for the 2018-19 season. The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians usually proposes a duck and merganser season from September 9, 2018, through January 26, 2019. A daily bag limit of 12 ducks would include no more than 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 3 black ducks, 3 wood ducks, 3 redheads, 6 mallards (only 2 of which may be a hen), 1 bufflehead, and 1 hooded merganser. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit.

    For coots and gallinules, the Tribe usually proposes a September 15, 2018, through January 26, 2019, season. Daily bag limits would be five coot and five gallinule.

    For white-fronted geese, snow geese, and brant, the Tribe usually proposes a September 8 through December 10, 2018, season. Daily bag limits would be five geese.

    For Canada geese only, the Tribe usually proposes a September 1, 2018, through February 4, 2019, season with a daily bag limit of five. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.

    For snipe, woodcock, rails, and mourning doves, the Tribe usually proposes a September 1 to November 12, 2018, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 common snipe, 5 woodcock, 10 rails, and 10 mourning doves. Possession limits for all species would be twice the daily bag limit.

    The Tribe monitors harvest through mail surveys. General conditions are as follows:

    A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2018-19 hunting license.

    B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. Shooting hours will be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

    C. Particular regulations of note include:

    (1) Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.

    (2) Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations.

    D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.

    Upon receipt of their proposal, we plan to approve Little River Band of Ottawa Indians' 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting seasons.

    (j) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Petoskey, Michigan (Tribal Members Only)

    The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Petoskey, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season.

    For the 2018-19 season, the LTBB proposes regulations similar to those of other Tribes in the 1836 treaty area. The LTBB proposes the regulations to govern the hunting of migratory birds by tribal members on the LTBB reservation and within the 1836 Treaty Ceded Territory. The tribal member duck and merganser season would usually run from September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019. A daily bag limit of 20 ducks and 10 mergansers would include no more than 5 hen mallards, 5 pintail, 5 canvasback, 5 scaup, 5 hooded merganser, 5 black ducks, 5 wood ducks, and 5 redheads.

    For Canada geese, the LTBB proposes a September 1, 2018, through February 8, 2019, season. The daily bag limit for Canada geese would be 20 birds. We further note that, based on available data (of major goose migration routes), it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population would be harvested by the LTBB. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit.

    For woodcock, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 1, 2018, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 10 birds. For snipe, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 31, 2018, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 16 birds. For mourning doves, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to November 14, 2018, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 15 birds. For Virginia and sora rails, the LTBB proposes a September 1 to December 31, 2018, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 20 birds per species. For coots and gallinules, the LTBB proposes a September 15 to December 31, 2018, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 20 birds per species. The possession limit will not exceed 2 days' bag limit for all birds.

    The LTBB also proposes a sandhill crane season to begin September 1 and end December 1, 2018. The daily bag limit will not exceed one bird. The possession limit will not exceed two times the bag limit.

    All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply.

    Harvest surveys from 2015-16 hunting season indicated that approximately 15 hunters harvested 9 different waterfowl species. No sandhill cranes were reported harvested during the 2015-16 season. The LTBB proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. In particular, the LTBB proposes monitoring the harvest of Southern James Bay Canada geese and sandhill cranes to assess any impacts of tribal hunting on the population.

    We propose to approve the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians' requested 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (k) Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Reservation, Lower Brule, South Dakota (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters)

    The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe first established tribal migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation in 1994. The Lower Brule Reservation is about 214,000 acres in size and is located on and adjacent to the Missouri River, south of Pierre. Land ownership on the reservation is mixed, and until recently, the Lower Brule Tribe had full management authority over fish and wildlife via a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the State of South Dakota. The MOA provided the Tribe jurisdiction over fish and wildlife on reservation lands, including deeded and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-taken lands. For the 2018-19 season, the two parties have come to an agreement that provides the public a clear understanding of the Lower Brule Sioux Wildlife Department license requirements and hunting season regulations. The Lower Brule Reservation waterfowl season is open to tribal and nontribal hunters.

    For the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a nontribal member duck, merganser, and coot season length of 97 days, or the maximum number of days allowed by Federal frameworks in the High Plains Management Unit for this season. The Tribe proposes a duck season from October 6, 2018, through January 10, 2019. The daily bag limit would be six birds or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redhead, two canvasback, three wood duck, three scaup, and one mottled duck. Two bonus blue-winged teal are allowed during October 6-21, 2018. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only two of which could be a hooded merganser. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be three times the daily bag limits.

    The Tribe's proposed nontribal-member Canada goose season would run from October 27, 2018, through February 10, 2019 (107-day season length), with a daily bag limit of six Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed nontribal member white-fronted goose season would run from October 27, 2018, through January 22, 2019, with a daily bag and possession limits concurrent with Federal regulations. The Tribe's proposed nontribal-member light goose season would run from October 27, 2018, through February 10, 2019, and February 11 through May 1, 2019. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20 or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow with no possession limits.

    For tribal members, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a duck, merganser, and coot season from September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019. The daily bag limit would be six ducks, including no more than two hen mallard and five mallards total, two pintail, two redheads, two canvasback, three wood ducks, three scaup, two bonus teal during the first 16 days of the season, and one mottled duck or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only two of which could be hooded mergansers. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be three times the daily bag limits.

    The Tribe's proposed Canada goose season for tribal members would run from September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019, with a daily bag limit of six Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed white-fronted goose tribal season would run from September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019, with a daily bag limit of two white-fronted geese or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow. The Tribe's proposed light goose tribal season would run from September 1, 2018, through March 10, 2019. A conservation order will also occur March 11, 2019, through May 1, 2019. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20 or the maximum number that Federal regulations allow, with no possession limits.

    The Tribe proposes a dove season for both Tribal and non-Tribal members from September 1, 2018, through November 29, 2018. The dove daily bag limit would be 15.

    In the 2016 season, nontribal members harvested 774 geese and 1,158 ducks. In the 2016 season, duck harvest species composition was primarily mallard (65 percent), green-winged teal (21 percent), and wigeon (2 percent).

    The Tribe anticipates a duck and goose harvest similar to those of the previous years. All basic Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, including the use of nontoxic shot, Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, etc., would be observed by the Tribe's proposed regulations. In addition, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has an official Conservation Code that was established by Tribal Council Resolution in June 1982 and updated in 1996.

    We plan to approve the Tribe's requested regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation if the seasons' dates fall within final Federal flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).

    (l) Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which Lower Elwha was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes are now acting independently, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would like to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2018-19 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855.

    For the 2018-19 season, we have yet to hear from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. The Tribe usually requests special migratory bird hunting regulations for ducks (including mergansers), geese, coots, band-tailed pigeons, snipe, and mourning doves. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe usually requests a duck and coot season from September 13, 2018, to January 4, 2019. The daily bag limit will be seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck will be one per season. The coot daily bag limit will be 25. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above.

    For geese, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 13, 2018, to January 4, 2019. The daily bag limit will be four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese will be closed.

    For brant, the Tribe usually proposes to close the season.

    For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit.

    All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl.

    The Tribe typically anticipates harvest to be fewer than 10 birds. Tribal reservation police and Tribal fisheries enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations.

    The Service proposes to approve the special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, upon receipt of their proposal.

    (m) Makah Indian Tribe, Neah Bay, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Makah Indian Tribe and the Service have been cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory game birds on the Makah Reservation and traditional hunting land off the Makah Reservation since the 2001-02 hunting season. Lands off the Makah Reservation are those contained within the boundaries of the State of Washington Game Management Units 601-603.

    The Makah Indian Tribe proposes a duck and coot hunting season from September 22, 2018, to January 27, 2019. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than five mallards (only two hen mallard), one canvasback, one pintail, three scaup, and one redhead. The daily bag limit for coots is 25. The Tribe has a year-round closure on wood ducks and harlequin ducks. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset.

    For geese, the Tribe proposes that the season open on September 22, 2018, and close January 27, 2019. The daily bag limit for geese is four and one brant. The Tribe notes that there is a year-round closure on Aleutian and dusky Canada geese.

    For band-tailed pigeons, the Tribe proposes that the season open September 22, 2018, and close October 21, 2018. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons is two.

    The Tribe anticipates that harvest under this regulation will be relatively low since there are no known dedicated waterfowl hunters and any harvest of waterfowl or band-tailed pigeons is usually incidental to hunting for other species, such as deer, elk, and bear. The Tribe expects fewer than 50 ducks and 10 geese to be harvested during the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season.

    All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The following restrictions are also proposed by the Tribe:

    (1) As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 0.25 miles of an occupied area.

    (2) Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl.

    (3) The Cape Flattery area is open to waterfowl hunting, except in designated wilderness areas, or within 1 mile of Cape Flattery Trail, or in any area that is closed to hunting by another ordinance or regulation.

    (4) The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited.

    (5) Steel or bismuth shot only for waterfowl is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited.

    (6) The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl.

    The Service proposes to approve the Makah Indian Tribe's requested 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (n) Navajo Nation, Navajo Indian Reservation, Window Rock, Arizona (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters)

    Since 1985, we have established uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers on the Navajo Indian Reservation (in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah). The Navajo Nation owns almost all lands on the reservation and has full wildlife management authority.

    We have yet to hear from the Navajo Nation for the 2018-19 season. The Tribe usually requests the earliest opening dates and longest duck, mergansers, Canada geese, and coots seasons, and the same daily bag and possession limits allowed to Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks for tribal and nontribal members.

    For both mourning dove and band-tailed pigeons, the Navajo Nation usually proposes seasons of September 1 through September 30, 2018, with daily bag limits of 10 and 5, respectively. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits.

    The Nation requires tribal members and nonmembers to comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter age 16 or older must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp), which must be signed in ink across the face. Special regulations established by the Navajo Nation also apply on the reservation.

    The Tribe usually anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 500 mourning doves; fewer than 10 band-tailed pigeons; fewer than 1,000 ducks, coots, and mergansers; and fewer than 1,000 Canada geese for the 2018-19 season. The Tribe measures harvest by mail survey forms. Through the established Navajo Nation Code, titles 17 and 18, and 23 U.S.C. 1165, the Tribe will take action to close the season, reduce bag limits, or take other appropriate actions if the harvest is detrimental to the migratory bird resource.

    We propose to approve the Navajo Nation's 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.

    (o) Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only)

    Since 1991-92, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and the Service have cooperated to establish uniform regulations for migratory bird hunting by tribal and nontribal hunters within the original Oneida Reservation boundaries. Since 1985, the Oneida Tribe's Conservation Department has enforced the Tribe's hunting regulations within those original reservation limits. The Oneida Tribe also has a good working relationship with the State of Wisconsin, and the majority of the seasons and limits are the same for the Tribe and Wisconsin.

    For the 2018-19 season, the Tribe submitted a proposal requesting special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, the Tribe proposal describes the general outside dates as being September 15 through December 2, 2018. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of six birds, which could include no more than six mallards (three hen mallards), six wood ducks, one redhead, two pintails, and one hooded merganser.

    For geese, the Tribe requests a season between September 1 and December 31, 2018, with a daily bag limit of five Canada geese. If a quota of 500 geese is attained before the season concludes, the Tribe will recommend closing the season early.

    For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1 and November 4, 2018, with a daily bag and possession limit of two and four, respectively.

    For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 2 and November 4, 2018, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.

    The Tribe proposes shooting hours be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must comply with all State of Wisconsin regulations, including shooting hours of one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, season dates, and daily bag limits. Tribal members and nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, with the following exceptions: Oneida members would be exempt from the purchase of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp); and shotgun capacity is not limited to three shells.

    The Service proposes to approve the 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.

    (p) Point No Point Treaty Council Tribes, Kingston, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    We are establishing uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members on behalf of the Point No Point Treaty Council Tribes, consisting of the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes. The two tribes have reservations and ceded areas in northwestern Washington State and are the successors to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855. These proposed regulations will apply to tribal members both on and off reservations within the Point No Point Treaty Areas; however, the Port Gamble S'Klallam and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal season dates differ only where indicated below.

    For the 2018-19 season, the Point No Point Treaty Council requests special migratory bird hunting regulations for both the Jamestown S'Klallam and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes. For ducks, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2018, and close March 10, 2019, and coots would open September 13, 2018, and close February 1, 2019. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes duck and coot seasons would open from September 1, 2018, to March 10, 2019. The daily bag limit would be seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one canvasback, one pintail, two redhead, and four scoters. The daily bag limit for coots would be seven. The daily bag limit and possession limit on harlequin ducks would be one per season. The daily possession limits are double the daily bag limits except where noted.

    For geese, the Point No Point Treaty Council proposes the season open on September 9, 2018, and close March 10, 2019, for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and open on September 1, 2018, and close March 10, 2019, for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. The daily bag limit for geese would be five, not to include more than three light geese. The Council notes that there is a year-round closure on dusky Canada geese. For brant, the Council proposes the season open on November 9, 2018, and close January 31, 2019, for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, and open on January 10 and close January 25, 2019, for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The daily bag limit for brant would be two.

    For band-tailed pigeons, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2018, and close March 10, 2019. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 13, 2018, and close January 18, 2019. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons would be two. For snipe, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2018, and close March 10, 2019. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 13, 2018, and close March 10, 2019. The daily bag limit for snipe would be eight. For mourning dove, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe season would open September 1, 2018, and close January 31, 2019. The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe would open September 13, 2018, and close January 18, 2019. The daily bag limit for mourning dove would be 10.

    The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 100 birds for the 2018-19 season. The tribal fish and wildlife enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these tribal regulations.

    We propose to approve the Point No Point Treaty Council Tribe's requested 2018-19 special migratory bird seasons.

    (q) Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan (Tribal Members Only)

    The Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribe, located on the Isabella Reservation lands bound by Saginaw Bay in Isabella and Arenac Counties, Michigan.

    We have yet to hear from the Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians. For ducks, mergansers, and common snipe, the Tribe usually proposes outside dates as September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019. The Tribe usually proposes a daily bag limit of 20 ducks, which could include no more than five each of the following: Hen mallards; wood duck; black duck; pintail; red head; scaup; and canvasback. The merganser daily bag limit is 10, with no more than 5 hooded mergansers and 16 for common snipe.

    For geese, coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail, the Tribe usually requests a season from September 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019. The daily bag limit for geese is 20, in the aggregate. The daily bag limit for coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail is 20 in the aggregate.

    For woodcock and mourning dove, the Tribe usually proposes a season between September 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, with daily bag limits of 10 and 25, respectively.

    For sandhill crane, the Tribe usually proposes a season between September 1, 2018, and January 31, 2019, with a daily bag limit of one.

    All Saginaw Tribe members exercising hunting treaty rights are required to comply with Tribal Ordinance 11. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20 apply, including the use of only nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl.

    The Service proposes to approve the request for 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians, upon receipt of their proposal.

    (r) Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Darrington, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (SSIT) requests a 2018-19 hunting season on all open and unclaimed lands under the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855. This 2018-19 proposal is the first year the Tribe is proposing a special migratory bird hunting season. The Tribe's reservation is located in Darrington, Washington, just west of the North Cascade Mountain range in Skagit County on the Sauk and Suiattle Rivers. The Tribe owns and manages all the land on the reservation and some lands surrounding or near the reservation in Skagit and Snohomish Counties. All of the lands that are Tribal or Reservation lands are closed for non-Tribal hunting, unless opened by a SSIT Special Regulation.

    The Tribe proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations for ducks, geese, brant, and coot with outside dates as September 1, 2018, through January 31, 2019. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 10 ducks, 5 geese, 5 brant, and 25 coot.

    Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20 apply, including the use of only nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl.

    The Service proposes to approve the request for 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe.

    (s) Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (Tribal Members Only)

    The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribe, distributed throughout the eastern Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Tribe has retained the right to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on the lands ceded in the Treaty of Washington (1836).

    The Tribe proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, mergansers, and common snipe, the Tribe proposes outside dates as September 15 through December 31, 2018. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 20 ducks, which could include no more than 10 mallards (5 hen mallards), 5 wood duck, 5 black duck, and 5 canvasbacks. The merganser daily bag limit is 10 in the aggregate and 16 for common snipe.

    For geese, teal, coot, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail, the Tribe requests a season from September 1 to December 31, 2018. The daily bag limit for geese is 20 in the aggregate. The daily bag limit for coot, teal, gallinule, sora, and Virginia rail is 20 in the aggregate.

    For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 2 and December 1, 2018, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.

    For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1 and November 14, 2018, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively.

    In 2016, the total estimated waterfowl hunters were 4,171. All Sault Ste. Marie Tribe members exercising hunting treaty rights within the 1836 Ceded Territory are required to submit annual harvest reports including date of harvest, number and species harvested, and location of harvest. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. All other regulations in 50 CFR part 20 apply, including the use of only nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl.

    The Service proposes to approve the request for 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

    (t) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Fort Hall, Idaho (Nontribal Hunters)

    Almost all of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is tribally owned. The Tribes claim full wildlife management authority throughout the reservation, but the Idaho Fish and Game Department has disputed tribal jurisdiction, especially for hunting by nontribal members on reservation lands owned by non-Indians. As a compromise, since 1985, we have established the same waterfowl hunting regulations on the reservation and in a surrounding off-reservation State zone. The regulations were requested by the Tribes and provided for different season dates than in the remainder of the State. We agreed to the season dates because they would provide additional protection to mallards and pintails. The State of Idaho concurred with the zoning arrangement. We have no objection to the State's use of this zone again in the 2018-19 hunting season, provided the duck and goose hunting season dates are the same as on the reservation.

    In a proposal for the 2018-19 hunting season, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes request a continuous duck (including mergansers and coots) season, with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted for Pacific Flyway States under the final Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose a duck and coot season with, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as last year, an opening date of October 6, 2018, and a closing date of January 18, 2019. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be about 7,500 ducks.

    The Tribes also request a continuous goose season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 6, 2018, and a closing date of January 18, 2019. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be about 5,000 geese.

    The Tribes request a common snipe season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 6, 2018, and a closing date of January 18, 2019.

    Nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours, use of steel shot, and manner of taking. Special regulations established by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also apply on the reservation.

    We note that the requested regulations are nearly identical to those of last year, and we propose to approve them for the 2018-19 hunting season if the seasons' dates fall within the final Federal flyway frameworks (applies to nontribal hunters only).

    (t) Skokomish Tribe, Shelton, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which the Skokomish Tribe was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes have been acting independently since 2005. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855.

    The Skokomish Tribe requests a duck and coot season from September 16, 2018, to February 28, 2019. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck is one per season. The coot daily bag limit is 25. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above.

    For geese, the Tribe requests a season from September 16, 2018, to February 28, 2019. The daily bag limit is four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese is closed. For brant, the Tribe proposes a season from November 1, 2018, to February 15, 2019, with a daily bag limit of two. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe requests a season from September 16, 2018, to February 28, 2019, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Skokomish Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl.

    The Tribe anticipates harvest to be fewer than 150 birds. The Skokomish Public Safety Office enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations.

    We propose to approve the Skokomish Tribe's 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season.

    (u) Spokane Tribe of Indians, Spokane Indian Reservation, Wellpinit, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Spokane Tribe of Indians wishes to establish waterfowl seasons on their reservation for its membership to access as an additional resource. An established waterfowl season on the reservation will allow access to a resource for members to continue practicing a subsistence lifestyle.

    The Spokane Indian Reservation is located in northeastern Washington State. The reservation comprises approximately 157,000 acres. The boundaries of the Reservation are the Columbia River to the west, the Spokane River to the south (now Lake Roosevelt), Tshimikn Creek to the east, and the 48th Parallel as the north boundary. Tribal membership comprises approximately 2,300 enrolled Spokane Tribal Members.

    These proposed regulations would allow Tribal Members, spouses of Spokane Tribal Members, and first-generation descendants of a Spokane Tribal Member with a tribal permit and Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp an opportunity to utilize the reservation and ceded lands for waterfowl hunting. These regulations would also benefit tribal membership through access to this resource throughout Spokane Tribal ceded lands in eastern Washington. By Spokane Tribal Referendum, spouses of Spokane Tribal Members and children of Spokane Tribal Members not enrolled are allowed to harvest game animals within the Spokane Indian Reservation with the issuance of hunting permits.

    The Tribe requests to establish duck seasons that would run from September 2, 2018, through January 31, 2019. The tribe is requesting the daily bag limit for ducks to be consistent with final Federal frameworks. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    The Tribe proposes a season on geese starting September 2, 2018, and ending on January 31, 2019. The tribe is requesting the daily bag limit for geese to be consistent with final Federal frameworks. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit.

    Based on the quantity of requests the Spokane Tribe of Indians has received, the tribe anticipates harvest levels for the 2018-19 season for both ducks and geese to be fewer than 100 total birds, with goose harvest at fewer than 50. Hunter success will be monitored through mandatory harvest reports returned within 30 days of the season closure.

    We propose to approve the Spokane Tribe's requested 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (v) Squaxin Island Tribe, Squaxin Island Reservation, Shelton, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington and the Service have cooperated since 1995, to establish special tribal migratory bird hunting regulations. These special regulations apply to tribal members on the Squaxin Island Reservation, located in western Washington near Olympia, and all lands within the traditional hunting grounds of the Squaxin Island Tribe.

    For the 2018-19 season, we have yet to hear from the Squaxin Island Tribe. The Tribe usually requests to establish duck and coot seasons that would run from September 1, 2018, through January 15, 2019. The daily bag limit for ducks would be five per day and could include only one canvasback. The season on harlequin ducks is closed. For coots, the daily bag limit is 25. For snipe, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 15, 2018, and end on January 15, 2019. The daily bag limit for snipe would be eight. For band-tailed pigeon, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 1 and end on December 31, 2018. The daily bag limit would be five. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.

    The Tribe usually proposes a season on geese starting September 15, 2018, and ending on January 15, 2019. The daily bag limit for geese would be four, including no more than two snow geese. The season on Aleutian and cackling Canada geese would be closed. For brant, the Tribe usually proposes that the season start on September 1 and end on December 31, 2018. The daily bag limit for brant would be two. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit.

    We propose to approve the Tribe's 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.

    (w) Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Arlington, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. For the 2018-19 season, the Tribe requests regulations to hunt all open and unclaimed lands under the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, including their main hunting grounds around Camano Island, Skagit Flats, and Port Susan to the border of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation. Ceded lands are located in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Kings Counties, and a portion of Pierce County, Washington. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe and reserves the Treaty Right to hunt (U.S. v. Washington).

    The Tribe proposes their duck (including mergansers and coot) and goose seasons run from October 1, 2018, to March 10, 2019. The daily bag limit on ducks (including sea ducks and mergansers) is 10. The daily bag limit for coot is 25. For geese, the daily bag limit is six. The season on brant is closed. Possession limits are totals of these three daily bag limits.

    The Tribe proposes the snipe seasons run from October 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019. The daily bag limit for snipe is 10. Possession limits are three times the daily bag limit.

    Harvest is regulated by a punch card system. Tribal members hunting on lands under this proposal will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, which will be enforced by the Stillaguamish Tribal law enforcement. Tribal members are required to use steel shot or a nontoxic shot as required by Federal regulations.

    The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of 200 ducks, 100 geese, 50 mergansers, 100 coots, and 100 snipe. Anticipated harvest needs include subsistence and ceremonial needs. Certain species may be closed to hunting for conservation purposes, and consideration for the needs of certain species will be addressed.

    The Service proposes to approve the Stillaguamish Tribe's request for 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (x) Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, LaConner, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    In 1996, the Service and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community began cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is a federally recognized Indian Tribe consisting of the Swinomish, Lower Skagit, Samish, and Kikialous. The Swinomish Reservation was established by the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, and lies in the Puget Sound area north of Seattle, Washington.

    For the 2018-19 season, the Tribal Community requests to establish a migratory bird hunting season on all areas that are open and unclaimed and consistent with the meaning of the treaty. The Tribe proposes their duck (including mergansers and coot) and goose seasons run from September 1, 2018, to March 9, 2019. The daily bag limit on ducks is 20. The daily bag limit for coot is 25. For geese, the daily bag limit is 10. The season on brant runs from September 1, 2018, to March 9, 2019. The daily bag limit is 5.

    The Tribe proposes the snipe season run from September 1, 2018, to March 9, 2019. The daily bag limit for snipe is 15. The Tribe proposes the mourning dove season run from September 1, 2018, to March 9, 2019. The daily bag limit for mourning dove is 15. The Tribe proposes the band-tailed pigeon season run from September 1, 2018, to March 9, 2019. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeon is three. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community requests to have no possession limits.

    The Community anticipates that the regulations will result in the harvest of approximately 600 ducks and 200 geese. The Swinomish utilize a report card and permit system to monitor harvest and will implement steps to limit harvest where conservation is needed. All tribal regulations will be enforced by tribal fish and game officers.

    We propose to approve these 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (y) The Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Tulalip Indian Reservation, Marysville, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Tribes and bands signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855. The Tulalip Tribes' government is located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation just north of the City of Everett in Snohomish County, Washington. The Tribes or individual tribal members own all of the land on the reservation, and they have full wildlife management authority. All lands within the boundaries of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation are closed to nonmember hunting unless opened by Tulalip Tribal regulations.

    For ducks, mergansers, coot, and snipe, the Tribe proposes seasons for tribal members from September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019. Daily bag and possession limits would be 15 and 30 ducks, respectively, except that for blue-winged teal, canvasback, harlequin, pintail, and wood duck, the bag and possession limits would be the same as those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks. For coot, daily bag and possession limits are 25 and 50, respectively, and for snipe 8 and 16, respectively. Ceremonial hunting may be authorized by the Department of Natural Resources at any time upon application of a qualified tribal member. Such a hunt must have a bag limit designed to limit harvest only to those birds necessary to provide for the ceremony.

    For geese, tribal members propose a season from September 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019. The goose daily bag and possession limits would be 10 and 20, respectively, except that the bag limits for brant, cackling Canada geese, and dusky Canada geese would be those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks.

    All hunters on Tulalip Tribal lands are required to adhere to shooting hour regulations set at one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, special tribal permit requirements, and a number of other tribal regulations enforced by the Tribe. Each nontribal hunter 16 years of age and older hunting pursuant to Tulalip Tribes' Ordinance No. 67 must possess a valid Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a valid State of Washington Migratory Waterfowl Stamp. Each hunter must validate stamps by signing across the face.

    Although the season length requested by the Tulalip Tribes appears to be quite liberal, harvest information indicates a total take by tribal and nontribal hunters of fewer than 1,000 ducks and 500 geese annually.

    We propose to approve the Tulalip Tribe's request for 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (z) Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Woolley, Washington (Tribal Members Only)

    The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. The Tribe has jurisdiction over lands within Skagit, Island, and Whatcom Counties, Washington. The Tribe issues tribal hunters a harvest report card that will be shared with the State of Washington.

    For the 2018-19 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting October 1, 2018, and ending February 28, 2019. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 15 with a possession limit of 20. The Tribe requests a coot season starting October 1, 2018, and ending February 15, 2019. The coot daily bag limit is 20 with a possession limit of 30.

    The Tribe proposes a goose season from October 1, 2018, to February 28, 2019, with a daily bag limit of 7 geese and a possession limit of 10. For brant, the Tribe proposes a season from November 1 to November 10, 2018, with a daily bag and possession limit of 2.

    The Tribe proposes a mourning dove season between September 1 and December 31, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 12 and possession limit of 15.

    The anticipated migratory bird harvest under this proposal would be 100 ducks, 5 geese, 2 brant, and 10 coots. Tribal members must have the tribal identification and tribal harvest report card on their person to hunt. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, except shooting hours would be 15 minutes before official sunrise to 15 minutes after official sunset.

    We propose to approve the Tribe's 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (aa) Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Aquinnah, Massachusetts (Tribal Members Only)

    The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head is a federally recognized Tribe located on the island of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The Tribe has approximately 560 acres of land, which it manages for wildlife through its natural resources department. The Tribe also enforces its own wildlife laws and regulations through the natural resources department.

    The Tribe proposes a duck season of October 8, 2018, through February 16, 2019. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of eight birds, which could include no more than four hen mallards, four mottled ducks, one fulvous whistling duck, four mergansers, three scaup, two hooded mergansers, three wood ducks, one canvasback, two redheads, two pintail, and four of all other species not listed. The season for harlequin ducks is closed. The Tribe proposes a teal (green-winged and blue) season of October 8, 2018, through February 16, 2019. A daily bag limit of 10 teal would be in addition to the daily bag limit for ducks.

    For sea ducks, the Tribe proposes a season between October 1, 2018, and February 16, 2019, with a daily bag limit of seven, which could include no more than one hen eider and four of any one species unless otherwise noted above.

    For Canada geese, the Tribe requests a season between September 3 and September 15, 2018, and between October 22, 2018, and February 16, 2019, with a daily bag limit of eight Canada geese. For snow geese, the tribe requests a season between September 3 and September 13, 2018, and between November 19, 2018, and February 16, 2019, with a daily bag limit of 15 snow geese.

    For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between October 8 and November 24, 2018, with a daily bag limit of three. For sora and Virginia rails, the Tribe usually requests a season of September 3, 2018, through November 3, 2018, with a daily bag limit of 5 sora and 10 Virginia rails. For snipe, the Tribe usually requests a season of September 3, 2018, through December 8, 2018, with a daily bag limit of eight.

    Prior to 2012, the Tribe had 22 registered tribal hunters and estimates harvest to be no more than 15 geese, 25 mallards, 25 teal, 50 black ducks, and 50 of all other species combined. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20. The Tribe requires hunters to register with the Harvest Information Program.

    We propose to approve the Tribe's 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (bb) White Earth Band of Ojibwe, White Earth, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only)

    The White Earth Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized tribe located in northwest Minnesota and encompasses all of Mahnomen County and parts of Becker and Clearwater Counties. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations. The Tribe and the Service first cooperated to establish special tribal regulations in 1999.

    For the 2018-19 migratory bird hunting season, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe requests a duck season to start September 8 and end December 16, 2018. For ducks, they request a daily bag limit of 10, including no more than 2 hen mallards, 2 pintail, and 2 canvasback. For mergansers, the Tribe proposes the season to start September 8 and end December 16, 2018. The merganser daily bag limit would be five, with no more than two hooded mergansers. For geese, the Tribe proposes an early season from September 1 through September 21, 2018, and a late season from September 22 through December 16, 2018. The early season daily bag limit is 10 geese, and the late season daily bag limit is 5 geese.

    For coots, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2018, season with daily bag limits of 20 coots. For snipe, woodcock, rail, and mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2018, season with daily bag limits of 10, 10, 25, and 25 respectively. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontoxic shot is required.

    Based on past harvest surveys, the Tribe anticipates harvest of 1,000 to 2,000 Canada geese and 1,000 to 1,500 ducks. The White Earth Reservation Tribal Council employs four full-time conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations.

    We propose to approve the Tribe's 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations.

    (cc) White Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Whiteriver, Arizona (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters)

    The White Mountain Apache Tribe owns all reservation lands, and the Tribe has recognized full wildlife management authority.

    The hunting zone for waterfowl is restricted and is described as: The length of the Black River west of the Bonito Creek and Black River confluence and the entire length of the Salt River forming the southern boundary of the reservation; the White River, extending from the Canyon Day Stockman Station to the Salt River; and all stock ponds located within Wildlife Management Units 4, 5, 6, and 7. Tanks located below the Mogollon Rim, within Wildlife Management Units 2 and 3, will be open to waterfowl hunting during the 2018-19 season. The length of the Black River east of the Black River/Bonito Creek confluence is closed to waterfowl hunting. All other waters of the reservation would be closed to waterfowl hunting for the 2018-19 season.

    We have yet to hear from the White Mountain Apache Tribe. For nontribal and tribal hunters, the Tribe usually proposes a continuous duck, coot, merganser, gallinule, and moorhen hunting season, with an opening date of October 14, 2018, and a closing date of January 28, 2019. The season on scaup would usually open November 4, 2018, and end January 28, 2019. The Tribe usually proposes a daily duck (including mergansers) bag limit of seven, which may include no more than two redheads, two pintail, three scaup (when open), seven mallards (including no more than two hen mallards), and two canvasback. The daily bag limit for coots, gallinules, and moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate.

    For geese, the Tribe usually proposes a season from October 14, 2018, through January 28, 2019. Hunting would be limited to Canada geese, and the daily bag limit would be three.

    Season dates for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would usually start September 1 and end September 15, 2018, in Wildlife Management Unit 10 and all areas south of Y-70 and Y-10 in Wildlife Management Unit 7, only. Proposed daily bag limits for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would be 3 and 10, respectively.

    Possession limits for the above species are twice the daily bag limits. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. There would be no open season for sandhill cranes, rails, and snipe on the White Mountain Apache lands under this proposal.

    A number of special regulations apply to tribal and nontribal hunters, which may be obtained from the White Mountain Apache Tribe Game and Fish Department.

    We plan to approve the White Mountain Apache Tribe's requested 2018-19 special migratory bird hunting regulations, upon receipt of their proposal.

    Public Comments

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in DATES.

    We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in the preamble of a final rule.

    Required Determinations

    Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the August 3 and October 3 proposed rules; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see our August 3, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 36308):

    • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration;

    • Endangered Species Act Consideration;

    • Regulatory Flexibility Act;

    • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;

    • Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;

    • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;

    • Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, 13563, and 13771.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2018-19 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

    Dated: May 14, 2018. Susan Combs, Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10949 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    83 100 Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—School Breakfast Program AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection which FNS employs to determine public participation in the School Breakfast Program.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent to: Tim Vázquez, School Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1206, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Tim Vázquez at 703-305-6294 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Tim Vázquez at 703-305-2590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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 shall 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 that were 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, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Title: 7 CFR part 220, School Breakfast Program.

    OMB Number: 0584-0012.

    Expiration Date: 10/31/2018.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) (42 U.S.C. 1773) authorizes the School Breakfast Program (SBP) as a nutrition assistance program in schools, and requires that “Breakfast served by schools participating in the School Breakfast Program under this section shall consist of a combination of foods and shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research.” This information collection is required to administer and operate this program in accordance with the NSLA (National School Lunch Act). The School Breakfast Program is administered at the State and school food authority (SFA) levels and operations include the submission of applications and agreements, submissions and payment of claims, and maintenance of records. The reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with this revision is summarized in the charts below. The difference in burden is due to adjustments, such as a decrease in the number of SFAs and an increase in the number of schools participating in the program. All the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the SBP are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget and are in force. This is a revision of the currently approved information collection.

    Affected Public: (1) State agencies; (2) School Food Authorities (3) schools.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 110,268 (56 SAs; 19,240 SFAs; 90,972 schools).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 10.017.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,104,583.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.226043.

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden: 238,786.

    Number of Recordkeepers: 110,268 (56 SAs; 19,240 SFAs; 90,972 schools).

    Number of Records per Record Keeper: 295.137.

    Estimated total Number of Records/Response to Keep: 32,945,120.

    Recordkeeping time per Response: 0.108837.

    Total Estimated Recordkeeping Burden: 3,618,963.40.

    Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden: 3,857,749.

    Current OMB Inventory for Part 220: 3,824,307.

    Difference (change in burden with this renewal): 33,442.

    See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

    Respondent Estimated
  • number
  • respondent
  • Est. frequency
  • of responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Estimated avg.
  • number of
  • hours per
  • response
  • Estimated total
  • hours
  • Reporting Burden State Agencies 56 36.3393 2035 0.2757 561 School Food Authorities 19,240 10.022270 192,828 0.99954 192,739 Schools 90,972 10 909,720 0.05 45,486 Total Estimated Reporting Burden 110,268 10.017 1,104,583 0.226043 238,786 Recordkeeping: State agencies 56 50 2,800 0.17976 503 School Food Authorities 19,240 10 192,400 0.083 15,969.20 Schools 90,972 360 32, 749,920 0.110 3,602,491.20 Total Estimated Recordkeeping Burden 110,268 295.1368 32,945,120 0.108837 3,618,963.40 Total of Reporting and Recordkeeping: Reporting 110,268 10.017 1,104,583 0.226043 238,786 Recordkeeping 110,268 295.137 32,945,120 0.108837 3,618,963.40 Total 34,049,703 3,857,749
    Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11073 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security [Docket No. 180402338-8338-01] RIN 0694-XC044 Reporting for Calendar Year 2017 on Offsets Agreements Related to Sales of Defense Articles or Defense Services to Foreign Countries or Foreign Firms AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; annual reporting requirements.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is to remind the public that U.S. firms are required to report annually to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually to Commerce information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. This year, such reports must include relevant information from calendar year 2017 and must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit reports in both hard copy and electronically. Address the hard copy to “Offsets Program Manager, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Room 3878, Washington, DC 20230”. Submit electronic copies to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald DeMarines, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: 202-482-3755; fax: 202-482-5650; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 723(a)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA) (50 U.S.C. 4568 (2015)) requires the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the impact of offsets on the U.S. defense industrial base. Section 723(a)(2) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to prepare the President's report and to develop and administer the regulations necessary to collect offsets data from U.S. defense exporters.

    The authorities of the Secretary regarding offsets have been delegated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The regulations associated with offsets reporting are set forth in part 701 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Offsets Regulations). Offsets are compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130). Offsets are also applicable to certain items controlled on the Commerce Control list (CCL) and with an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) including the numeral “6” as its third character. The CCL is found in Supplement No. 1 to part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations.

    An example of an offset is as follows: A company that is selling a fleet of military aircraft to a foreign government may agree to offset the cost of the aircraft by providing training assistance to plant managers in the purchasing country. Although this distorts the true price of the aircraft, the foreign government may require this sort of extra compensation as a condition of awarding the contract to purchase the aircraft. As described in the Offsets Regulations, U.S. firms are required to report information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative.

    Commerce's annual report to Congress includes an aggregated summary of the data reported by industry in accordance with the offsets regulation and the DPA (50 U.S.C. 4568 (2015)). As provided by section 723(c) of the DPA, BIS will not publicly disclose individual firm information it receives through offsets reporting unless the firm furnishing the information specifically authorizes public disclosure. The information collected is sorted and organized into an aggregate report of national offsets data, and therefore does not identify company-specific information.

    To enable BIS to prepare the next annual offset report reflecting calendar year 2017 data, affected U.S. firms must submit required information on offsets agreements and offsets transactions from calendar year 2017 to BIS no later than June 15, 2018.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Richard E. Ashooh, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11074 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-805] Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa) and Maquilacero, S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero), producers/exporters of certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico, sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 6, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.1 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), Commerce invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On March 23, 2018, Maquilacero and Prolamsa each submitted case briefs.2 On March 28, 2018, Wheatland Tube Company (the petitioner) submitted a rebuttal brief.3

    1See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 57579 (December 6, 2017) (Preliminary Results).

    2See Maquilacero Letter re: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico; Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.'s Case Brief, dated March 23, 2018 (Maquilacero's Case Brief); see also Prolamsa letter re: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Case Brief, dated March 23, 2018 (Prolamsa's Case Brief).

    3See Petitioner Letter re: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Wheatland Rebuttal Brief, dated March 28, 2018 (Petitioner's Rebuttal Brief).

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.4 As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this review was April 9, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Commerce extended the time limit for the final results, until May 18, 2018.5

    4See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    5See Memorandum, “Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated March 8, 2018.

    These final results cover ten companies. Based on an analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the weighted-average dumping margins determined for the respondents. The weighted-average dumping margins are listed in the “Final Results of Review” section, below.

    This administrative review was conducted in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes. The merchandise covered by the order and subject to this review is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,6 which is hereby adopted by this notice and incorporated herein by reference. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6See Memorandum, “Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this proceeding are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded, is attached to this notice as an appendix.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to Prolamsa's margin calculation. Additionally, we made certain changes to the assessment rates for both mandatory respondents. These changes are fully discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Application of Adverse Facts Available

    For these final results, we continue to find that Maquilacero withheld necessary information and significantly impeded the proceeding and, thus, failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to our requests for information. Therefore, we find that the application of adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Act, is warranted with respect to Maquilacero. For a full description of the methodology and rationale underlying our conclusions, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    Lamina y Placa Comercial, S.A. de C.V. (Lamina y Placa), Pytco, S.A. de C.V. (Pytco), Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa), Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (TUNA), and Villacero reported that they made no sales of subject merchandise during the POR.7 On April 28, 2017, we issued a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to confirm the claims of no shipments by Lamina y Placa, Pytco, Regiopytsa, Villacero, and TUNA during the POR.8 We received no information from CBP that contradicted Lamina y Placa, Pytco, Regiopytsa, Villacero, and TUNA's claims of no shipments, and we received no comments from interested parties with respect to Commerce's preliminary determination of no shipments for Lamina y Placa, Pytco, Regiopytsa, Villacero, and TUNA. Therefore, based on the claims of no shipments by Lamina y Placa, Pytco, Regiopytsa, Villacero, and TUNA, and because the record contains no information to the contrary, we continue to determine for these final results that Lamina y Placa, Pytco, Regiopytsa, Villacero, and TUNA made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    7See Lamina y Placa Letter re: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: Notice of No Sales, dated January 25, 2017 (which includes TUNA); see also Villacero Letter re: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico: Notice of No Sales, dated February 3, 2017; see also Regiopytsa Letter re: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico: No Shipment Notification, dated February 13, 2017 (which includes Pytco).

    8See Preliminary Results.

    Rate for Non-Examined Companies

    The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual review in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”

    However, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where all margins are zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available, Commerce may use “any reasonable method” for assigning a margin to non-selected respondents. One method contemplated by section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act is “averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” For these final results, we calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of zero percent for Prolamsa, and we determined Maquilacero's margin entirely on the basis of facts available (i.e., 48.33 percent). Because we have no calculated rates that are not based entirely on facts available, zero, or de minimis, we have determined that a reasonable method for assigning a margin to non-selected respondents in this review is to average the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the two mandatory respondents. The simple average of these rates is 24.17 percent, and this is the rate we assign to Abastecedora y Perfiles y Tubos, S.A. de C.V. (Abastecedora), Conduit, S.A. de C.V. (Conduit), and Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium).9

    9See, e.g., Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 22232 (April 15, 2013), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 12-15.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter or producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Maquilacero, S.A. de C.V 48.33 Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V 0.00 Abastecedora y Perfiles y Tubos, S.A. de C.V 24.17 Conduit, S.A. de C.V 24.17 Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V 24.17
    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the weighted-average dumping margin of Prolamsa is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries covered by this review period without regard to antidumping duties. Commerce will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 48.33 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by Maquilacero. Commerce will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 24.17 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by Abastecedora, Conduit, or Ternium. Additionally, because Commerce determined that Lamina y Placa, Pytco, Regiopytsa, Villacero, and TUNA had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under those companies' case numbers (i.e., at those companies' rates) will be liquidated at the all-others rate effective during the period of review consistent with Commerce's practice.10 We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    10 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 32.62 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.11 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    11See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico, 57 FR 42953 (September 17, 1992).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: May 17, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Use of Prolamsa's Revised Databases Comment 2: Revision of POR in Prolamsa's Margin Program Comment 3: Proper CONNUMs to Use in Prolamsa's Margin Program Comment 4: Prolamsa's Warehousing Expenses Comment 5: AFA Rate for Maquilacero Comment 6: Maquilacero Liquidation Instructions V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-11031 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-072] Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid and derivative products (GNA products) from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Galantucci or Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2923 or 202-482-3518, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on January 4, 2018.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018.2 On February 7, 2018, Commerce published its postponement of the deadline for the preliminary determination of the investigation for the full 130 days permitted under section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) until May 2, 2018.3

    1See Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid, and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 499 (January 4, 2018) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018. (Tolling Memorandum). All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    3See Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 5401 (February 7, 2018).

    For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping (AD) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are sodium gluconate, gluconic acid and derivative products from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations, we set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of the signature date of that notice. We received several comments concerning the scope of the AD and CVD investigations of GNA products from China.

    We are currently evaluating the scope comments filed by interested parties. We intend to issue our preliminary decision regarding the scope of the AD and CVD investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigation, which is due for signature on July 2, 2018. We will incorporate the scope decisions from the AD investigation into the scope of the final CVD determination after considering any relevant comments submitted in case and rebuttal briefs.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, We preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that confers a benefit on the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.5 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    5See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    We note that, in making these findings, we relied on facts otherwise available. Additionally, because we find that the mandatory respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to our requests for information, and therefore impeded this investigation, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.6

    6See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Alignment

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), Commerce is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of GNA products from China, based on a request made by PMP Fermentation Products, Inc. (the petitioner).7 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than September 17, 2018.8

    7See Letter from the petitioner, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: PMP's Request to Align the Countervailing Duty Final Determination with the Companion Antidumping Final Determination,” dated April 12, 2018.

    8See Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid, and Derivative Products From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 83 FR 19050 (May 1, 2018).

    Adverse Facts Available

    In accordance with sections 776(a)(1), 776(a)(2), and 776(b) of the Act, we applied facts otherwise available with an adverse inference to assign countervailable subsidy rates to non-cooperative mandatory respondents Qingdao Dongxiao Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Dongxiao), Shandong Fuyang Biotechnology Co. (Fuyang), Shandong Kaison Biochemical Co Ltd (Kaison), and Tongxiang Hongyu Chemical Co., Ltd. (Hongyu Chemical). Hongyu Chemical, Kaison and Qingdao Dongxiao did not respond to Commerce's request for necessary information, and therefore impeded this investigation. Accordingly, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.

    With respect to Fuyang, we find that certain of Fuyang's submissions remain incomplete, or conflict with other record evidence. We find the use of facts available is appropriate because Fuyang did not provide Commerce with necessary information in the form and manner requested and otherwise impeded the proceeding. Furthermore, we find that Fuyang failed to act to the best of its ability in providing Commerce with the requested information, thereby warranting the application of an adverse inference. For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.9

    9 Section 782(i) of the Act requires Commerce to verify a respondent's data as part of an investigation. However, because we are preliminarily applying adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to each of the respondents, we do not intend to conduct verification in this investigation.

    All-Others Rate

    With respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are determined entirely in accordance with section 776 of the Act, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, as noted above, the rates assigned to Fuyang, Hongyu Chemical, Kaison and Qingdao Dongxiao are based entirely on facts otherwise available, with an adverse inference, pursuant to section 776 of the Act. There is no other information on the record with which to determine an all-others rate. Accordingly, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we are using “any reasonable method” to establish the all-others rate, and have established the all-others rate by applying the countervailable subsidy rates assigned to mandatory respondents Fuyang, Hongyu Chemical, Kaison and Qingdao Dongxiao.

    Commerce summarizes its preliminary countervailable subsidy rates in the table below:

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Qingdao Dongxiao Enterprise Co., Ltd 194.67 Shandong Fuyang Biotechnology Co 194.67 Shandong Kaison Biochemical Co Ltd 194.67 Tongxiang Hongyu Chemical Co., Ltd 194.67 All-Others 194.67
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of GNA products from China as described in the scope of the investigation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing. Case briefs may be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If Commerce's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after Commerce's final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 2, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers all grades of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, liquid gluconate, and glucono delta lactone (GDL) (collectively, GNA products), regardless of physical form (including, but not limited to substrates; solutions; dry granular form or powders, regardless of particle size; or as a slurry). The scope also includes GNA products that have been blended or are in solution with other product(s) where the resulting mix contains 35 percent or more of sodium gluconate, gluconic acid, liquid gluconate, and/or GDL by dry weight.

    Sodium gluconate has a molecular formula of NaC6H11O7. Sodium gluconate has a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of 527-07-1, and can also be called “sodium salt of gluconic acid” and/or sodium 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pentahydroxyhexanoate. Gluconic acid has a molecular formula of C6H12O7. Gluconic acid has a CAS registry number of 526-95-4, and can also be called 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 pentahydroxycaproic acid. Liquid gluconate is a blend consisting only of gluconic acid and sodium gluconate in an aqueous solution. Liquid gluconate has CAS registry numbers of 527-07-1, 526-95-4, and 7732-18-5, and can also be called 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-pentahydroxycaproic acid-hexanoate. GDL has a molecular formula of C6H10O6. GDL has a CAS registry number of 90-80-2, and can also be called d-glucono-1,5-lactone.

    The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 2918.16.1000, 2918.16.5010, and 2932.20.5020. Merchandise covered by the scope may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 2918.16.5050, 3824.99.2890, and 3824.99.9295. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. New Subsidy Allegation VI. Alignment VII. Injury Test VIII. Application of the CVD Law to Imports from China IX. Attribution of Subsidies X. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences XI. Calculation of the All-Others Rate XII. ITC Notification XIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-10566 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-922] Raw Flexible Magnets From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding its administrative review of raw flexible magnets from the People's Republic of China (China) based on the timely withdrawal of all requests for review, for the period of review (POR) September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ariela Garvett or Maliha Khan, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3609 and (202) 482-0895, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 1, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on raw flexible magnets from China for the above POR.1 On October 2, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), Commerce received a timely request from Qwik Picz Photo Booth, LLC (QPP) to conduct an administrative review.2

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 41595 (September 1, 2017).

    2See Letter from QPP, “Raw Flexible Magnets from the PRC; A-570-922; Request for Review by Qwik Picz Photo Booth, LLC,” dated October 2, 2017.

    Pursuant to this request, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), on November 13, 2017, Commerce published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on raw flexible magnets from China.3 This administrative review covers QPP's suppliers, Som International Limited and Wenzhou Haibao Printing Co., LTD, during the period September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017. On January 16, 2018, QPP withdrew its request for an administrative review.4

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 52268 (November 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    4See Letter from QPP, “Raw Flexible Magnets from the PRC; A-570-922; Withdraw Request for Review by Qwik Picz Photo Booth, LLC,” dated January 16, 2018.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. QPP withdrew its review request with respect to Som International Limited and Wenzhou Haibao Printing Co., LTD, before the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review in its entirety.

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of raw flexible magnets from China. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 9, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-10564 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-029, C-570-030] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (CRS), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) manufactured in the People's Republic of China (China), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CRS from China.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tyler Weinhold or John Drury, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1121 or (202) 482-0195, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 11, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination  1 of circumvention of the CRS Orders. 2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 58178 (December 11, 2017) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 45955 (July 14, 2016) (CRS AD Order), and Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 81 FR 45960 (July 14, 2016) (CRS CVD Order) (collectively, CRS Orders).

    3See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. For a complete description of the scope of the orders, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiries

    These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CRS produced in Vietnam using HRS substrate manufactured in China and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise). These rulings apply to all shipments of inquiry merchandise on or after the date of the initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CRS produced in Vietnam using HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries must certify that the HRS processed into CRS in Vietnam did not originate in China, as provided for in the certifications attached to this Federal Register notice. Otherwise, their merchandise may be subject to antidumping and countervailing duties.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because Vietnam and China 4 are non-market economy countries, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce calculated the value of certain processing and merchandise using factors of production and market economy values, as discussed in section 773(c) of the Act. Because Vietnam and China are non-market economy countries, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, in the Preliminary Determination Commerce calculated the value of certain processing and merchandise using factors of production and market economy values, as discussed in section 773(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum for a full description of the methodology. We have continued to apply this methodology for our final determination. For further information, see Comment 6 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    4See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017) (citing Memorandum to Gary Taverman, “China's Status as a Non-Market Economy,” dated October 26, 2017), unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018); see also Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 24797 (October 14, 2016) (unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 18611 (April 20, 2017)).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to our value of processing calculation since the Preliminary Determination. These changes are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention

    We determine that CRS produced in Vietnam from HRS substrate manufactured in China is circumventing the CRS Orders. We, therefore, find it appropriate to determine that this merchandise falls within the CRS Orders and to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of any entries of CRS from Vietnam produced using HRS substrate manufactured in China.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As stated above, Commerce has made an affirmative determination of circumvention of the CRS Orders by exports to the United States of CRS produced in Vietnam using Chinese-origin HRS substrate. This circumvention finding applies to CRS produced by any Vietnamese company using Chinese-origin HRS substrate. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(3), Commerce will direct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of CRS produced in Vietnam using Chinese-origin HRS substrate that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2016, the date of initiation of these anti-circumvention inquiries.

    The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will instruct CBP to require AD cash deposits equal to the rate established for the China-wide entity (199.76 percent) and CVD cash deposits equal to the rate established for China all-others rate (256.44 percent). In the underlying AD and CVD investigations, there were no cooperating respondents and, accordingly, all producers/exporters, as appropriate, of subject merchandise received the same AD rate of 199.76 and CVD rate of 256.44.

    CRS produced in Vietnam using HRS substrate that is not of Chinese-origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. If an importer imports CRS from Vietnam and it claims that the CRS was not produced using HRS substrate manufactured in China, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CRS produced in Vietnam using non-Chinese origin HRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Exporter Certification (see Appendix IV). In addition, importers of such CRS must prepare and maintain an Importer Certification (see Appendix III) as well as documentation supporting the Importer Certification. In addition to the Importer Certification, the importer must also maintain a copy of an Exporter Certification (see Appendix IV) and relevant supporting documentation from its exporter of CRS produced using non-Chinese-origin HRS substrate.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Orders IV. Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiries V. Statutory Framework VI. Statutory Analysis VII. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VIII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Section 781(b) Anti-circumvention Inquiry When Commerce Has Made Previous Substantial Transformation Findings Comment 2: The Scopes of the Orders Do Not Cover Further Processed Merchandise in a Third Country Comment 3: Country-Wide Determination is Not Justified Comment 4: Certification Requirements Comment 5: Statutory Criteria Benchmarked to HRS Production in China Comment 6: Assembly or Completion in Vietnam and Value of Processing Performed in Vietnam (Including Use of SV Methodology) Comment 7: “Pattern of Trade and Sourcing” and “Increased Imports” Findings Comment 8: Energy Comment 9: Application of AFA for VNSteel PFS IX. Recommendation Appendix II—Certification Requirements

    If an importer imports certain cold rolled steel products (CRS) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CRS was not produced using hot-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in the People's Republic of China (China), the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached as Appendix III. The importer is further required to maintain a copy of the exporter certification, discussed below. The importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated at the time of filing of the entry summary for the relevant importation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification.

    The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification. The exporter certification must be completed, signed, and dated before or at the time of shipment of the relevant entries. The exporter certification should be completed by the party selling the merchandise manufactured in Vietnam to the United States, which is not necessarily the producer of the product.

    The importer and third-country exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation (as indicated in the certifications) supporting their certifications.

    The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries. If it is determined that the certification and/or documentation requirements in a certification have not been met, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, under the China CRS orders A-570-029 and C-570-030, all unliquidated entries for which these requirements were not met and require the importer to post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce. Entries suspended under A-570-029 and C-570-030 will be liquidated pursuant to applicable administrative reviews of the China orders or through the automatic liquidation process.

    For CRS produced in Vietnam using Chinese hot-rolled substrate, Commerce has established the following third-country case numbers in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): A-552-996 and C-552-997.

    For entries suspended pursuant to the Preliminary Determination of these anti-circumvention inquiries that were (1) shipped and/or (2) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 4, 2016, through December 10, 2017, the day preceding publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, which are claimed to be produced using non-Chinese HRS substrate, Commerce permitted importer and exporter certifications to be completed for a limited period following the Preliminary Determination. 5 Specifically, Commerce required completion of the importer and exporter certifications within 45 days of publication of the Preliminary Determination Federal Register notice. Likewise, for such merchandise, the exporter was required to provide the importer a copy of the exporter certification within 45 days of the Preliminary Determination publication.

    5 Commerce Memorandum, “Clarification of Certification Requirements Pursuant to Preliminary Affirmative Anti-circumvention Rulings and Extension of 30-Day Deadline for Pre-Preliminary Determination Shipments,” dated January 9, 2018, at 2-3.

    For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of merchandise entered as type 01 entries that were (1) shipped and/or (2) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 4, 2016, through December 10, 2017, the day preceding publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, produced from Chinese substrate, importers should file a Post Summary Correction with CBP, in accordance with CBP's regulations, regarding possible conversion of such entries from type 1 to type 3 entries and report those type 3 entries using the third-country case numbers A-552-996 and C-552-997. Accordingly, the importer also should pay cash deposits on those entries consistent with the regulations governing post summary corrections that require payment of additional duties.

    For merchandise (1) shipped and/or (2) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 4, 2016, through December 10, 2017, the day preceding publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, for which certifications are required, importers and exporters each had the option to complete a blanket certification covering multiple entries, individual certifications for each entry, or a combination thereof.6 The importer certifications, and copies of the exporter certifications, should be maintained by the importer and provided to CBP or Commerce upon request by the respective agency.

    6 Commerce Memorandum, “Clarification of Certification Requirements Pursuant to Preliminary Affirmative Anti-circumvention Rulings and Extension of 30-Day Deadline for Pre-Preliminary Determination Shipments,” dated January 9, 2018, at 2-3.

    Appendix III—Importer Certification

    I hereby certify that:

    • My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY};

    • This certification pertains to {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S), ENTRY LINE NUMBER(S), AND PRODUCT CODE(S) REFERENCED ON ENTRY SUMMARY};

    • I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the cold-rolled steel products produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” for purposes of this certification refers to facts in records maintained by the importing company in the normal course of its business. The importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (e.g., the name of the exporter) in its records;

    • I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” for purposes of this certification includes facts obtained from another party (e.g., correspondence received by the importer (or exporter) from the producer regarding the source of the substrate used to produce the imported products);

    • The cold-rolled steel products produced in Vietnam that are covered by this certification do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China;

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (i.e., documents maintained in the normal course of business, or documents obtained by the certifying party, for example, mill certificates, productions records, invoices, etc.) for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to maintain a copy of the Exporter's Certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the Exporter's Certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or the Department;

    • I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;

    • I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:

    ○ suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met, and

    ○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits (as appropriate) equal to the rates determined by Commerce;

    • I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;

    • This certification was completed at the time of filing the entry summary for the relevant importation;

    • I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.

    Signature NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL TITLE DATE
    Appendix IV—Exporter Certification

    I hereby certify that:

    • My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};

    • This certification pertains to {INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S) TO U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PRODUCT CODE(S) REFERENCED ON INVOICE};

    • I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the cold-rolled steel products from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) that shipped pursuant to {INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S) TO U.S. CUSTOMERS} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” for purposes of this certification refers to facts in records maintained by the exporting company in the normal course of its business. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.

    • The cold-rolled steel products produced in Vietnam that are covered by this certification do not contain hot-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China.

    • I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (i.e., documents maintained in the normal course of business, or documents obtained by the certifying party, for example, mill certificates, productions records, invoices, etc.) for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;

    • I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer before or at the time of shipment;

    • I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);

    • I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or the Commerce;

    • I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:

    ○ suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met, and

    ○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits (as appropriate) equal to the rates as determined by the Department;

    • This certification was completed before or at the time of shipment of the relevant entries;

    • I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.

    Signature NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL TITLE DATE
    [FR Doc. 2018-11029 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-557-813] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Malaysia for the period of review (POR) August 1, 2016, through July 31, 2017. We continue to find that Euro SME Sdn Bhd (Euro SME) did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alex Rosen or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7814 or (202) 482-5848, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 19, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 2 We received a case brief from the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corp. (the petitioners).3 No other parties submitted comments or rebuttal comments.

    1See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 11959 (March 19, 2018) (Preliminary Results).

    2Id. at 11960.

    3See letter from the petitioners, “Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Case Brief,” dated April 11, 2018 (Petitioners' Case Brief).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs), which also may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

    PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of this antidumping duty order excludes (1) PRCBs that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) PRCBs that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.

    Imports of merchandise included within the scope of this antidumping duty order are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This subheading may also cover products that are outside the scope of this antidumping duty order. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this antidumping duty order is dispositive.

    Comments Received

    On April 11, 2018, the petitioners submitted a case brief which notes only that the 2.40 percent rate listed for all-other producers or exporters in the Preliminary Results notice is incorrect, and that the final results should reflect the 84.94 percent all-others rate established in the investigation of this order.4 Because this issue is addressed infra, and no further issues were briefed in the instant proceeding, no decision memorandum accompanies this Federal Register notice.

    4See Petitioners' Case Brief at 1, citing to Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 11959-60 and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004) (Investigation).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    The Preliminary Results stated that, “effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review . . . the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters is 2.40 percent.” 5 The 2.40 percent rate for all-other producers or exporters, as stated in the Preliminary Results notice, was a typographical error. Commerce agrees with the petitioners that it determined an all-others rate of 84.94 percent in the Investigation, 6 that this all-others rate has not changed.7 Thus, the correct rate applicable to all-other producers or exporters in this review continues to be 84.94 percent. Accordingly, we are correcting the all-others rate listed in the “Cash Deposit Requirements” section below to accurately reflect the 84.94 percent rate calculated in the Investigation. 8

    5See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 11959-60.

    6See Investigation, 69 FR at 34129.

    7See, e.g., Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 75378, 75379 (October 31, 2016).

    8Id.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    We found in the Preliminary Results that Euro SME had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR,9 and no party commented on this preliminary finding. As a result, this finding has not changed.10 For further details of the issues addressed in this proceeding, see the Preliminary Results. 11

    9See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 11959.

    10Id.

    11Id.

    Assessment Rates

    Commerce determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, where applicable, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    Regarding Euro SME, the exporter under review, which we determined had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, for any suspended entries of subject merchandise for which Euro SME did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction.12

    12See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Euro SME, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to Euro SME in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is a firm not covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters is 84.94 percent.13 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13See Investigation, 69 FR at 34129.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: May 17, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11030 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-026, C-570-027] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE), produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using carbon hot-rolled steel (HRS) or cold-rolled steel (CRS) flat products manufactured in the People's Republic of China (China), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CORE from China.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Decker or Mark Hoadley, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-3148, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 11, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination  1 of circumvention of the CORE Orders. 2 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 82 FR 58170 (December 11, 2017) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 48390 (July 25, 2016), and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 81 FR 48387 (July 25, 2016) (collectively, CORE Orders).

    3See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. For a complete description of the scope of the orders, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiries

    These anti-circumvention inquiries cover CORE produced in Vietnam using HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in China and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise). These rulings apply to all shipments of inquiry merchandise on or after the date of the initiation of these inquiries. Importers and exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using (1) HRS manufactured in Vietnam or third countries, (2) CRS manufactured in Vietnam using HRS produced in Vietnam or third countries, or (3) CRS manufactured in third countries, must certify that the HRS or CRS processed into CORE in Vietnam did not originate in China, as provided for in the certifications attached to this Federal Register notice. Otherwise, their merchandise may be subject to antidumping and countervailing duties.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting these anti-circumvention inquiries in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because Vietnam and China 4 are non-market economy countries, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce calculated the value of certain processing and merchandise using factors of production and market economy values, as discussed in section 773(c) of the Act. Because Vietnam and China are non-market economy countries, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, in the Preliminary Determination Commerce calculated the value of certain processing and merchandise using factors of production and market economy values, as discussed in section 773(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum for a full description of the methodology. We have continued to apply this methodology for our final determination. For further information, see Comment 6 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    4See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017) (citing Memorandum to Gary Taverman, “China's Status as a Non-Market Economy,” dated October 26, 2017), unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018); see also Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 24797 (October 14, 2016) (unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 18611 (April 20, 2017)).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to our value of processing calculation since the Preliminary Determination. These changes are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention

    We determine that CORE produced in Vietnam from HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in China is circumventing the CORE Orders. We, therefore, find it appropriate to determine that this merchandise falls within the CORE Orders and to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of any entries of CORE from Vietnam produced using HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in China.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As stated above, Commerce has made an affirmative determination of circumvention of the CORE Orders by exports to the United States of CORE produced in Vietnam using Chinese-origin HRS or CRS substrate. This circumvention finding applies to CORE produced by any Vietnamese company using Chinese-origin HRS or CRS substrate. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(3), Commerce will direct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of CORE produced in Vietnam using Chinese-origin HRS or CRS substrate that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2016, the date of initiation of these anti-circumvention inquiries.

    The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Commerce will instruct CBP to require AD cash deposits equal to the rate established for the China-wide entity (199.43 percent) and CVD cash deposits equal to the rate established for the China all-others rate (39.05 percent). In the underlying AD and CVD investigations, Commerce relied on the rates calculated for the sole cooperative respondent in each investigation to determine the China-wide rate of 199.43 percent in the AD investigation and the all-others rate of 39.05 percent in the CVD investigation. The rates are thus based on the cost and sales data and subsidy benefits of Chinese producers.

    CORE produced in Vietnam using HRS or CRS substrate that is not of Chinese-origin is not subject to these inquiries. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise. If an importer imports CORE from Vietnam and it claims that the CORE was not produced using HRS or CRS substrate manufactured in China, in order not to be subject to cash deposit requirements, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in Appendix II. Exporters of CORE produced in Vietnam using non-Chinese-origin HRS or CRS substrate must prepare and maintain an Exporter Certification and documentation supporting the Exporter Certification (see Appendix IV). In addition, importers of such CORE must prepare and maintain an Importer Certification (see Appendix III) as well as documentation supporting the Importer Certification. Besides the Importer Certification, the importer must also maintain a copy of an Exporter Certification (see Appendix IV) and relevant supporting documentation from its exporter of CORE produced using non-Chinese-origin HRS or CRS substrate.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction or APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These determinations are issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Orders IV. Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiries V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Statutory Framework VII. Statutory Analysis VIII. Discussion of the Issues

    Comment 1: Section 781(B) Anti-Circumvention Inquiry When Commerce Has Made Previous Substantial Transformation Findings

    Comment 2: The Scopes of the Orders Do Not Cover Merchandise Further Processed in a Third Country

    Comment 3: A Country-Wide Determination Is Not Justified

    Comment 4: Certification Requirements

    Comment 5: Statutory Criteria Benchmarked to HRS or CRS Production in China

    Comment 6: Assembly or Completion in Vietnam and Value of Processing Performed in Vietnam (Including Use of SV Methodology)

    Comment 7: “Pattern of Trade and Sourcing” and “Increased Imports” Findings

    Comment 8: Energy

    Comment 9: Unit Values for Hot-Rolled and Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs

    Comment 10: TDA's Labor

    Comment 11: TDA's Byproducts

    Comment 12: Affiliation With Suppliers

    IX. Recommendation
    Appendix II Certification Requirements

    If an importer imports certain corrosion-resistant steel products (CORE) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) and claims that the CORE was not produced using hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel substrate (substrate) manufactured in the People's Republic of China (China), the importer is required to complete and maintain the importer certification attached as Appendix III. The importer is further required to maintain a copy of the exporter certification, discussed below. The importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated at the time of filing of the entry summary for the relevant importation. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, it should obtain the entry number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to make this certification.

    The exporter is required to complete and maintain the exporter certification, attached as Appendix IV, and is further required to provide the importer a copy of that certification. The exporter certification must be completed, signed, and dated before or at the time of shipment of the relevant entries. The exporter certification should be completed by the party selling the merchandise manufactured in Vietnam to the United States, which is not necessarily the producer of the product.

    The importer and third-country exporter are also required to maintain sufficient documentation (as indicated in the certifications) supporting their certifications.

    The importer will not be required to submit the certifications or supporting documentation to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as part of the entry process. However, the importer and the exporter will be required to present the certifications and supporting documentation, to the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and/or CBP, as applicable, upon request by the respective agency. Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. The importer and exporter are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries. If it is determined that the certification and/or documentation requirements in a certification have not been met, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, under the China CORE orders A-570-026 and C-570-027, all unliquidated entries for which these requirements were not met and require the importer to post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits equal to the rates as determined by Commerce. Entries suspended under A-570-026 and C-570-027 will be liquidated pursuant to applicable administrative reviews of the China orders or through the automatic liquidation process.

    For CORE produced in Vietnam using Chinese hot-rolled or cold-rolled substrate, Commerce has established the following third-country case numbers in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): A-552-994 and C-552-995.

    For entries suspended pursuant to the Preliminary Determination of these anti-circumvention inquiries that were (1) shipped and/or (2) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 4, 2016, through December 10, 2017, the day preceding publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, which are claimed to be produced using non-Chinese HRS or CRS substrate, Commerce permitted importer and exporter certifications to be completed for a limited period following the Preliminary Determination. 5 Specifically, Commerce required completion of the importer and exporter certifications within 45 days of publication of the Preliminary Determination Federal Register notice. Likewise, for such merchandise, the exporter was required to provide the importer a copy of the exporter certification within 45 days of the Preliminary Determination publication.

    5See Commerce Memorandum, “Clarification of Certification Requirements Pursuant to Preliminary Affirmative Anti-circumvention Rulings and Extension of 30-Day Deadline for Pre-Preliminary Determination Shipments,” dated January 9, 2018, at 2-3.

    For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of merchandise entered as type 01 entries that were (1) shipped and/or (2) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 4, 2016, through December 10, 2017, the day preceding publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, produced from Chinese substrate, importers should file a Post Summary Correction with CBP, in accordance with CBP's regulations, regarding possible conversion of such entries from type 1 to type 3 entries and report those type 3 entries using the third-country case numbers A-552-994 and C-552-995. Accordingly, the importer also should pay cash deposits on those entries consistent with the regulations governing post summary corrections that require payment of additional duties.

    For merchandise (1) shipped and/or (2) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 4, 2016, through December 10, 2017, the day preceding publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, for which certifications are required, importers and exporters each had the option to complete a blanket certification covering multiple entries, individual certifications for each entry, or a combination thereof.6 The importer certifications, and copies of the exporter certifications, should be maintained by the importer and provided to CBP or Commerce upon request by the respective agency.

    6Id.

    Appendix III Importer Certification

    I hereby certify that:

    • My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY};

    • This certification pertains to {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S), ENTRY LINE NUMBER(S), AND PRODUCT CODE(S) REFERENCED ON ENTRY SUMMARY};

    • I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of the corrosion-resistant steel products produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) that entered under entry number(s) {INSERT ENTRY NUMBER(S)} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” for purposes of this certification refers to facts in records maintained by the importing company in the normal course of its business. The importer should have “direct personal knowledge” of the importation of the product (e.g., the name of the exporter) in its records;

    • I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” for purposes of this certification includes facts obtained from another party (e.g., correspondence received by the importer (or exporter) from the producer regarding the source of the substrate used to produce the imported products);

    • The corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that are covered by this certification do not contain hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China;

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (i.e., documents maintained in the normal course of business, or documents obtained by the certifying party, for example, mill certificates, productions records, invoices, etc.) for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to provide this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to maintain a copy of the Exporter's Certification for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;

    • I understand that {INSERT IMPORTING COMPANY NAME} is required to maintain and provide a copy of the Exporter's Certification and supporting records, upon request, to CBP and/or the Department;

    • I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;

    • I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:

    ○ Suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met, and

    ○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits (as appropriate) equal to the rates determined by Commerce;

    • I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;

    • This certification was completed at the time of filing the entry summary for the relevant importation;

    • I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.

    Signature NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL TITLE DATE
    Appendix IV Exporter Certification

    I hereby certify that:

    • My name is {INSERT COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME HERE} and I am an official of {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY};

    • This certification pertains to {INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S) TO U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PRODUCT CODE(S) REFERENCED ON INVOICE};

    • I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the corrosion-resistant steel products from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) that shipped pursuant to {INSERT INVOICE NUMBER(S) TO U.S. CUSTOMERS} and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” for purposes of this certification refers to facts in records maintained by the exporting company in the normal course of its business. For example, an exporter should have “direct personal knowledge” of the producer's identity and location.

    • The corrosion-resistant steel products produced in Vietnam that are covered by this certification do not contain hot-rolled or cold-rolled steel substrate produced in the People's Republic of China.

    • I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (i.e., documents maintained in the normal course of business, or documents obtained by the certifying party, for example, mill certificates, productions records, invoices, etc.) for the later of (1) a period of five years from the date of entry or (2) a period of three years after the conclusion of any litigation in the United States courts regarding such entries;

    • I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} must provide this Exporter Certification to the U.S. importer before or at the time of shipment;

    • I understand that {INSERT NAME OF EXPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide a copy of this certification and supporting records, upon request, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the Department of Commerce (Commerce);

    • I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation are subject to verification by CBP and/or the Commerce;

    • I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and/or failure to substantiate the claims made herein will result in:

    ○ Suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met, and

    ○ the requirement that the importer post applicable antidumping duty (AD) and/or countervailing duty (CVD) cash deposits (as appropriate) equal to the rates as determined by the Department;

    • This certification was completed before or at the time of shipment of the relevant entries;

    • I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.

    Signature NAME OF COMPANY OFFICIAL TITLE DATE
    [FR Doc. 2018-11028 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice of 30-day Public Comment Period on an Addendum to the Portland Harbor Damage Assessment Plan AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Comment Period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 1, 2010 NOAA and its co-members of the Portland Harbor Trustee Council (Trustee Council) published the “Portland Harbor Superfund Site Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan”, which set forward the Trustee Council's approach for assessing natural resource damages at the Portland Harbor Superfund Site in cooperation with potentially responsible parties in order to resolve natural resource damages liability through legal settlements.

    Through today's notice, NOAA is announcing: (1) An addendum to the plan that provides for additional efforts to complete the assessment of natural resource damages for lost ecological and human use services resulting from releases of hazardous substances and oil to the lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon; and (2) a provision of a 30-day period for public comment on the addendum.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are sought on the new addendum to the damage assessment plan and should be emailed to [email protected] with the subject line: “Comments on Addendum to the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan.” Comments may also be mailed to: Rob Neely of NOAA Western Region Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Building 1, Seattle, WA, 98118. The addendum is found at: https://casedocuments.darrp.noaa.gov/northwest/portharbor/pdf/Portland_Harbor_Addendum_to_Nat_Res_Damage_Assess_Plan_0309_2018_Public.pdf

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 1, 2000 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed Portland Harbor on the National Priorities List, thus designating it as a Superfund Site. Since the early 1900s numerous industrial facilities have operated in the vicinity of the lower Willamette River from its confluence with the Columbia River at river mile 0 upstream to downtown Portland at approximately river mile 14. Activities have included ship building, repair and maintenance; energy generation; oil and gas transfer and storage; pesticide production; port operations; and others. These activities have resulted in the release of hazardous substances and oil to the Portland Harbor.

    Examples of contaminants of concern released to the Portland Harbor include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. Natural resources such as benthic invertebrates, migratory fish (such as juvenile Chinook salmon), resident fish (such as sculpin), mink, osprey and bald eagles exposed to these compounds can potentially be harmed as a result. In addition, hazardous substances released to the Portland Harbor have resulted have reduced the human use services (e.g., recreational fishing, recreational boating, tribal uses) provided by the lower Willamette River. In addition, fish consumption advisories related to hazardous substances have been issued to the public warning of the risks associated with consumption of various fish species commonly targeted by anglers. Addendum 2 to the Damage Assessment Plan sets forth the approach the Trustee Council will apply to completing the damage assessment process to resolve natural resource damages liability with non-settling parties.

    The Trustee Council is composed of Federal, state and tribal natural resource trustees. Members of the Trustee Council include the U.S. Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); the U.S. Department of Commerce, acting through NOAA; the State of Oregon; the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians; the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and the Nez Perce Tribe. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.; the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251; the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan [National Contingency Plan (NCP)], 40 CFR 300, Subpart G; Executive Orders 12580 and 12777; and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations, provide a legal framework for the Trustee Council's actions.

    Under the federal regulations, the Trustee Council can elect to perform a Type A or Type B injury assessment. Type A assessment procedures use simplified model assumptions to assess injuries that result from a single event or short-term exposure. Releases of hazardous substances from the Site have occurred from multiple sources over many decades, resulting in complex exposure conditions impacting aquatic and upland media and associated complex food webs. Therefore, the Trustee Council previously elected to perform a Type B assessment, the procedures for which require “more extensive field observation than the Type A procedures.” 43 CFR 11.33(b). This assessment method includes injury determination, quantification, and damage determination. Because substantial Site-specific data already exist to support the assessment, a Type B assessment can be conducted for the Site at a reasonable cost. The federal regulations for a Type B assessment outline methods for determining (1) pathways through which hazardous substances released by PLPs expose natural resources, (2) injuries to natural resources, (3) the extent of those injuries and resultant public losses, (4) baseline conditions and time required for the resources to recover to baseline, and (5) the cost or value of restoring injured resources. These methods facilitate calculation of natural resource damages. 43 CFR 11.60-11.84.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. David Westerholm, Director, Office of Response and Restoration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11075 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG240 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the following: Personnel Committee (Closed Session); Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Selection Committee (Closed Session); Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee (Partially Closed Session); Citizen Science Committee (Partially Closed Session); Spiny Lobster Committee; Law Enforcement Commitment; Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; Joint Habitat Ecosystem, Shrimp, and Golden Crab Committees; Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Committee; Mackerel Cobia Committee; Standard Operating, Policy, and Procedure (SOPPs) Committee; and the Executive Finance Committee. The Council will meet as a Committee of the Whole to address the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule and have a meeting of the full Council.

    The Council will also hold an informal Question and Answer Session, a formal public comment session, and take action as necessary. A For-Hire Electronic Reporting Outreach Training Session will also be held.

    DATES:

    The Council meeting will be held from 1:30 p.m. on Sunday, June 10, 2018 until 1 p.m. on Friday, June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Bahia Mar Doubletree by Hilton, 801 Seabreeze Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316; phone: (855) 610-8733; fax: (954) 627-6359.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected] Meeting information is available from the Council's website at: http://safmc.net/meetings/council-meetings/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment: Written comments may be directed to Gregg Waugh, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (see Council address) or electronically via the Council's website at http://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/council-meetings/. The public comment form is open for use when the briefing book is posted to the website on the Friday, two weeks prior to the Council meeting (5/25/18). Comments received by close of business the Monday before the meeting (6/4/18) will be compiled, posted to the website as part of the meeting materials, and included in the administrative record; please use the Council's online form available from the website. For written comments received after the Monday before the meeting (after 6/4/18), individuals submitting a comment must use the Council's online form available from the website. Comments will automatically be posted to the website and available for Council consideration. Comments received prior to noon on Thursday, June 14, 2018 will be a part of the meeting administrative record.

    The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:

    Personnel Committee (Closed Session), Sunday, June 10, 2018 From 1:30 p.m. Until 6 p.m. and Monday, June 11, 2018, 8 a.m. Until 11 a.m.

    1. The Personnel Committee will meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel issues relative to budget and provide recommendations for Council consideration.

    SSC Selection Committee (Closed Session), Monday, June 11, 2018, 11 a.m. Until 12 Noon

    1. The Committee will review applications and provide recommendations for appointments.

    SEDAR Committee (Partially Closed Session), Monday, June 11, 2018, 1 p.m. Until 2 p.m.

    1. The Committee will review applications and provide recommendations for appointments (Closed Session).

    2. The Committee will review Terms of Reference for cobia and yellowtail snapper stock assessments, receive SSC comments, and updates on assessment activities.

    Citizen Science Committee (Partially Closed)—Monday, June 11, 2018, 2 p.m. until 3 p.m.

    1. The Committee will review applicants for the Operations Committee and make recommendations for appointments (Closed Session).

    2. The Committee will receive an update on program development, review draft Citizen Science research needs, and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    3. The Committee will receive an update on the Citizen Science pilot project and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    Law Enforcement Committee (Partially Closed), Monday, June 11, 2018, 3 p.m. Until 4 p.m.

    1. The Committee will review nominations for Law Enforcement Officer of the Year and provide recommendations for Council consideration. (Closed Session).

    2. The Committee will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Advisory Panel, discuss and provide recommendations as appropriate.

    3. The Committee will receive a report on U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement priorities, discuss and provide recommendations for Council consideration.

    Spiny Lobster Committee, Monday, June 11, 2018, 4 p.m. Until 5 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive an update on the status of catches versus annual catch limit (ACLs) and a report from the Spiny Lobster Advisory Panel.

    2. The Committee will review draft Spiny Lobster Amendment 13 addressing bullynets and measures recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), select preferred alternatives, and provide recommendations for taking the draft amendment to public hearings.

    Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee Meeting, Monday, June 11, 2018, 5 p.m. Until 6 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive a report from the Habitat Advisory Panel and provide guidance to staff as necessary.

    2. The Committee will receive an update on habitat and ecosystem tools and model development, and review and approve actions on habitat as appropriate.

    Snapper Grouper Committee, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, 8 a.m. Until 5 p.m., and Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 8 a.m. Until 4:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on commercial and recreational catches versus quotas for species under ACLs and the status of amendments under formal Secretarial review.

    2. The Committee will receive an update from NOAA Fisheries on the red snapper season for 2018, the status of the 2017 catches, and the length of the 2018 season, discuss and take action as necessary.

    3. The Committee will discuss an extension of the interim rule for the annual catch limit for golden tilefish, discuss and consider requesting an extension from NOAA Fisheries.

    4. The Committee will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel and take action as necessary. The Committee will also receive a presentation on a case study examining bag limit and trip satisfaction in the for-hire sector specific to black sea bass.

    5. The Committee will receive a report from the SSC including results of stock assessment reviews for black sea bass and vermilion snapper, Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) recommendations for blueline tilefish north of Cape Hatteras, Red Snapper ABC Workgroup update, and golden tilefish ABC recommendations. The Committee will take action as necessary. The Committee will also receive an update on the Southeast Reef Fish Survey.

    6. The Committee will review draft Snapper Grouper Amendment 46 addressing permitting and reporting measures for private recreational anglers, provide guidance to staff, and consider approval for public scoping. The Committee will also review draft Snapper Grouper Amendment 29 addressing best fishing practices and the use of powerheads for harvesting species in the snapper grouper complex, provide guidance to staff, and consider approval for public scoping.

    7. The Committee will receive an overview of the Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 addressing recreational management actions and alternatives as identified in the 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will modify the document as necessary, select preferred alternatives, and approve all actions.

    8. The Committee will receive an overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 27 addressing commercial management actions and alternatives, as identified in the 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery and a presentation on discard mortality of gray triggerfish. The Committee will modify the document as necessary, select preferred alternatives, and approve all actions.

    9. The Committee will review a draft scoping document for Snapper Grouper Amendment 47 addressing options for a moratorium on federal for-hire permits, discuss and provide guidance to staff, and consider approval for public scoping.

    10. The Committee will receive an overview of Regulatory Amendment 30 addressing a rebuilding plan for red grouper, review, provide guidance to staff, and consider approval for public scoping.

    11. The Committee will receive an overview of draft Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 28 addressing golden tilefish management, consider public comments, and consider approval for formal Secretarial review.

    12. The Committee will receive an overview of draft Snapper Grouper Amendment 42 addressing sea turtle release gear, review scoping comments and modify/approve actions and alternatives to be analyzed. The Committee will also receive an overview of draft Regulatory Amendment 31 addressing management measures for yellowtail snapper and provide guidance to staff.

    Informal Question and Answer Session, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, 5 p.m.

    Formal Public Comment, Wednesday, June 13, 2018, 4:30 p.m.—Public comment will be accepted on items on the Council agenda including Snapper Grouper Amendment 28 (golden tilefish) and Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Amendment 31 (Atlantic cobia) that the Council is considering for final approval. The Council is also accepting public comment on Executive Order 13771 (2 for 1 regulations) to identify regulations that are (1) outdated, (2) unnecessary, or (3) ineffective. The Council Chair, based on the number of individuals wishing to comment, will determine the amount of time provided to each commenter.

    ABC Control Rule—Committee of the Whole, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 8 a.m. Until 10 a.m.

    1. The Committee of the Whole will receive an overview of the modified ABC Control Rule Amendment, receive SSC comments, discuss and develop recommendations and consider scoping alternatives.

    2. The Committee of the Whole will receive an overview of Recreational Accountability Measures, discuss, and develop recommendations.

    Joint Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management, Shrimp, and Golden Crab Committee Meeting, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 10 a.m. Until 11 a.m.

    1. The Committees will receive an overview of the joint Coral Amendment 10/Shrimp Amendment 11/Golden Crab Amendment 10 addressing access and transit provisions and options for Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for the golden crab fishery. The Committees will also receive reports from the Coral AP, Shrimp AP, and Golden Crab AP before discussing the joint amendment, provide recommendations, and consider approving for public scoping.

    Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Committee, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 11 a.m. Until 12 p.m.

    1. The Committee will review options for incorporating Special Management Zones into regulations for the HMS bottom longline fishery and provide guidance to staff.

    Mackerel Cobia Committee, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 1 p.m. Until 3 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive an update on commercial and recreational catches versus ACLs, a report from the Mackerel Cobia AP, and an update on landing and effort estimates for tournaments from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP).

    2. The Committee will review Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 6 addressing Atlantic king mackerel trip limits, confirm preferred alternatives, and consider approval for public hearings.

    3. The Committee will review Coastal Migratory Pelagics Amendment 31 addressing proposed management measures for Atlantic cobia, receive a response from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission addressing management concerns, receive an update from the Cobia Stock Identification Workshop, review the document, and consider approving the amendment for formal Secretarial review.

    SOPPs Committee, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 3 p.m. Until 4 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive an overview of changes proposed to the SOPPs and Council Handbook, discuss, and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

    Executive/Finance Committee, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 4 p.m. Until 5:30 p.m.

    1. The Committee will receive an overview of the current Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization efforts, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.

    2. The Committee will receive an overview of the draft Calendar Year 2018 budget, the Council's Follow Up document and priorities list, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.

    3. The Committee will receive an overview of regulatory reform efforts, Atlantic Coast-Wide Group discussion, and the Council's consideration for an Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan, discuss, and provide guidance to staff. The Committee will also receive a report from the Council Coordination Committee's May 2018 meeting, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.

    For Hire Electronic Reporting Outreach Training, Thursday, June 14, 2018, 6 p.m.

    The Council will hold a workshop as part of a series of training sessions targeting charter vessel owners/operators.

    Council Session: Friday, June 15, 2018, 8 a.m. Until 1 p.m. (Partially Closed Session if Needed)

    The Full Council will begin with the Call to Order, adoption of the agenda, approval of minutes, announcements and introductions, and awards/recognition.

    The Council will receive a Legal Briefing on Litigation from NOAA General Counsel (if needed) during Closed Session. The Council will receive staff reports including the Executive Director's Report, a presentation on the MyFishCount Recreational Reporting pilot project, and a report on the Economic Impacts of Fisheries for Council-managed Species.

    Updates will be provided by NOAA Fisheries including a report on the status of commercial catches versus ACLs for species not covered during an earlier committee meeting, the status of Recreational and Commercial Quota Monitoring Tables on the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office website, data-related reports, a protected resources update, update on the status of the of the Commercial Electronic Logbook Program, and a presentation on the method used to determine dolphin pelagic longline landings by permit type. The Council will discuss and take action as necessary.

    The Council will review any Exempted Fishing Permits received as necessary. The Council will receive Committee reports from the Snapper Grouper, Mackerel Cobia, Spiny Lobster, Law Enforcement, SSC Selection, ABC Control Rule Committee of the Whole, SEDAR, Habitat, Joint Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management/Shrimp/Golden Crab, Citizen Science, Personnel, SOPPs, and Executive Finance Committees, and take action as appropriate.

    The Council will receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.

    Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES).

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11023 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG247 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    A subgroup of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan team (BS FEP) will meet June 14, 2018.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 14, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific standard time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in 2039, MML room, at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7700 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. Teleconference number: 1-877-953-3919.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907)-271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Thursday June 14, 2018

    The purpose of the meeting is to review, revise, and develop the goals and objectives of the draft Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, and discuss metrics for measuring whether objectives are being accomplished. Revised goals and objectives will be included in the next draft of the BS FEP, which is scheduled to be reviewed by the Council's Ecosystem Committee in July.

    Public Comment

    Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted either electronically to Diana Evans, Council staff: [email protected] or through the mail: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252. In-person oral public testimony will be accepted at the discretion of the chair.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11024 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG236 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of meetings of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Finance and Infrastructure Action Team via webinar.

    DATES:

    The meeting via webinar will be held every other week on Wednesday at 1 p.m. starting June 13, 2018. The schedule of meetings is Wednesday, June 13; June 27; July 11; July 25; and August 22, 2018. All of the meetings will start at 1 p.m. and are scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes each. Additional Action Team meetings and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held via webinar and are open to members of the public. Webinar registration is required and registration links will be posted to the Citizen Science program page of the Council's website at www.safmc.net.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance and Infrastructure, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.

    The Finance and Infrastructure Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting.

    Items to be addressed during these meetings:

    1. Discuss work on tasks in the Terms of Reference 2. Other Business Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11022 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG213 Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners To the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) on June 29, 2018.

    DATES:

    The meeting of the PAC will be held via conference call on June 29, 2018, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded). Members of the public may submit written comments; comments must be received by June 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be conducted via conference call. For details on how to call in to the conference line or to submit comments, please contact Valerie Post, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5034; email: [email protected] Documents to be considered by the PAC will be sent out via email in advance of the conference call. Please submit contact information to Valerie Post (telephone: 808-725-5034; email: [email protected]) at least 3 days in advance of the call to receive documents via email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Post, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808-725-5034; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Permanent Advisory Committee, or PAC, has been formed to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. Members of the PAC have been appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC supports the work of the U.S. National Section to the WCPFC in an advisory capacity. The U.S. National Section is made up of the U.S. Commissioners and the Department of State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office provides administrative and technical support to the PAC in cooperation with the Department of State. More information on the WCPFC, established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, can be found on the WCPFC website: http://www.wcpfc.int.

    Meeting Topics

    The purpose of the June 29, 2018, conference call is to discuss outcomes of the 2017 regular session of the WCPFC (WCPFC14), 2018 U.S. priorities in the WCPFC, and potential management measures for tropical tunas and other issues of interest.

    Special Accommodations

    The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Valerie Post at 808-725-5034 at least ten working days prior to the meeting.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6902 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11035 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice TIME AND DATE:

    Friday, May 18, 2018; 2:00 p.m.*

    PLACE:

    Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    STATUS:

    Commission Meeting—Closed to the public.

    MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Compliance Matter: The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of a compliance matter.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Office of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479.

    * The Commission unanimously determined by recorded vote that Agency business requires calling the meeting without seven calendar days advance public notice.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Alberta E. Mills, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11092 Filed 5-21-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Request for Information on Technologies To Support Operations in the Information Environment AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Request for information

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to conduct an Information Event (meeting) on technologies to support operations in the information environment. This event will identify existing technologies to address requirements identified in the Joint Concept for Operations in the Information Environment (JCOIE). The intended effect of the Information Event is to identify potential performers and technology capabilities for future contract actions.

    DATES:

    The event will take place from June 25-29, 2018 at 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA 22102.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests to attend the event should be sent to Dr. Elizabeth K. Bowman, Army Research Lab, [email protected] not later than June 15, 2018 by email or in writing: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Computational and Information Science Directorate, RDRL-CII/Elizabeth Bowman, Building 321 Room 134, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:<