Federal Register Vol. 83, No.104,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 104 (May 30, 2018)

Page Range24651-24903
FR Document

83_FR_104
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 24901 - Streamlining Regulations on Commercial Use of SpacePDF
83 FR 24740 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 24745 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 24743 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 24737 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 24735 - Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles, Including Cars, SUVs, Vans and Light Trucks, and Automotive PartsPDF
83 FR 24661 - Income TaxesPDF
83 FR 24654 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 24834 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24751 - Intent To Award Grantback Funds to the Pennsylvania Department of EducationPDF
83 FR 24651 - Involuntary Liquidation of Federal Credit Unions and Claims ProceduresPDF
83 FR 24815 - Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program-Fiscal Year 2018 Inflation Factors for Public Housing Agency Renewal FundingPDF
83 FR 24819 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Recreation Survey QuestionsPDF
83 FR 24799 - Adequacy Status of the Indiana Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Area for the Submitted 2008 Ozone Standard Fifteen Percent Rate of Progress Plan for Transportation Conformity PurposesPDF
83 FR 24785 - See the Item Specific Docket Numbers Provided in the Text; Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; See Item Specific ICR Titles Provided in the TextPDF
83 FR 24795 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Continuous Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) Under CERCLA 1980 (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1445.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0086PDF
83 FR 24664 - Response to Vacatur of Certain Provisions of the Definition of Solid Waste RulePDF
83 FR 24797 - Extension of the Application Deadline Date for Credit Assistance Under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) ProgramPDF
83 FR 24796 - EPA Board of Scientific Counselors; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
83 FR 24838 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding the 2018 GSP Annual Product Review and Initiation of Country Practice Review of ThailandPDF
83 FR 24797 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of Several Currently Approved Collections (EPA ICR Nos. 2491.04 and 2475.03); Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24842 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Approval for Renewal and Revision of Information Collection: High Density Traffic Airports: Slot Allocation and Transfer MethodsPDF
83 FR 24714 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; KY; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville Unclassifiable AreaPDF
83 FR 24749 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24809 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24805 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24809 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24803 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24810 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24805 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 24806 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24805 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24750 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24800 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24837 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Trumbull County, OhioPDF
83 FR 24832 - Early Site Permit Application; Tennessee Valley Authority; Clinch River Nuclear Site; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 24840 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Kitty Hawk CorporationPDF
83 FR 24841 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Vickers Aircraft Company LTDPDF
83 FR 24680 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Metal Halide Lamp FixturesPDF
83 FR 24794 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 24784 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 24767 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd. From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim WaiverPDF
83 FR 24762 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of AeroSys Inc. (AeroSys) From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim WaiverPDF
83 FR 24754 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of National Comfort Products, Inc. (NCP) From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim WaiverPDF
83 FR 24671 - Control of Communicable Diseases; Technical CorrectionPDF
83 FR 24656 - FAST Act Section 61003-Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Critical Energy Infrastructure InformationPDF
83 FR 24810 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24800 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
83 FR 24717 - Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 24718 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Pale Cyst NematodePDF
83 FR 24696 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA Into Schedule IPDF
83 FR 24817 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
83 FR 24782 - Notice of Joint Meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory CommissionPDF
83 FR 24780 - Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas FacilitiesPDF
83 FR 24782 - Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
83 FR 24784 - Notice of Supplemental Filing: Vigue, Peter A.PDF
83 FR 24781 - Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 24778 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-716); Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24820 - Tool Chests and Cabinets From China and Vietnam; DeterminationPDF
83 FR 24846 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Tax Treatment of Salvage and ReinsurancePDF
83 FR 24838 - Meeting of the Regional Energy Resource CouncilPDF
83 FR 24781 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Antelope Expansion 2, LLCPDF
83 FR 24783 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 24783 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
83 FR 24779 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 24717 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24817 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Nonferrous Metals SurveysPDF
83 FR 24814 - Intent To Request Approval From OMB of One New Public Collection of Information: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act and Retired Badge/CredentialPDF
83 FR 24813 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA End of Course Level 1 Evaluation-Instructor-Led Classroom TrainingPDF
83 FR 24821 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Countering Weapons of Mass DestructionPDF
83 FR 24652 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Autobrake System Structural LoadsPDF
83 FR 24751 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Migrant Student Information Exchange User Application FormPDF
83 FR 24811 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Electric Scissor LiftsPDF
83 FR 24802 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24847 - Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee June 12, 2018 Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 24834 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to the Clearing Rules To Implement the European Union General Data Protection RegulationPDF
83 FR 24832 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility To Amend SAIL Port FeesPDF
83 FR 24754 - Publication of State Plan Pursuant to the Help America Vote ActPDF
83 FR 24836 - Investor Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 24684 - Tribal Consultation for Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs and Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 24842 - Proposed Information Collections; Comment Request (No. 69)PDF
83 FR 24807 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24804 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 24810 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 24804 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24804 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24803 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24808 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 24747 - Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Broadband Availability DataPDF
83 FR 24726 - Inviting Applications for Rural Cooperative Development GrantsPDF
83 FR 24719 - Inviting Applications for Socially-Disadvantaged Groups GrantsPDF
83 FR 24822 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Office of Justice Programs' Community Partnership Grants Management System (GMS)PDF
83 FR 24820 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension With Change of a Currently Approved Collection; National Firearms Act Division and Firearms and Explosives Services Division Customer Service SurveyPDF
83 FR 24718 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comments Requested: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form (FNS 543)PDF
83 FR 24822 - Notice of Exemption Involving BNP Paribas S.A. (BNP Paribas) and Its Current and Future Affiliates, and Certain Related Entities (Collectively, the Applicant), Located in Paris, FrancePDF
83 FR 24841 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Scholes International Airport, Galveston, TexasPDF
83 FR 24694 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 24688 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 24686 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
83 FR 24690 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 24672 - Private Investment Project ProceduresPDF
83 FR 24701 - Changes to the Trademark Rules of Practice To Mandate Electronic FilingPDF
83 FR 24895 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Micro-Purchase Threshold (DFARS Case 2017-D027)PDF
83 FR 24894 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision “Alternate A, System for Award Management” (DFARS Case 2017-D044)PDF
83 FR 24892 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Clause “Right of First Refusal of Employment-Closure of Military Installations” (DFARS Case 2018-D002)PDF
83 FR 24891 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Modification of DFARS Clause “Riding Gang Member Requirements” (DFARS Case 2018-D026)PDF
83 FR 24890 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of Restrictions on Chemical Weapons Antidote (DFARS Case 2018-D006)PDF
83 FR 24897 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Contract Closeout Authority (DFARS Case 2018-D012)PDF
83 FR 24888 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Delegation of Special Emergency Procurement Authority (DFARS Case 2018-D024)PDF
83 FR 24887 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision “Representation Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons” (DFARS Case 2018-D003)PDF
83 FR 24886 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Repeal of DFARS Provision “Alternative Line Item Structure” (DFARS Case 2017-D045)PDF
83 FR 24850 - Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air ActPDF
83 FR 24661 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10PDF

Issue

83 104 Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24717 2018-11512 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals; Correction, 24717 2018-11533
Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24842-24846 2018-11494 Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Firearms Act Division and Firearms and Explosives Services Division Customer Service Survey, 24820-24821 2018-11478 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pale Cyst Nematode, 24718 2018-11532 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes Under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, 24821-24822 2018-11507 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24749-24750 2018-11565 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

NOTICES Hearings: Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles, Including Cars, SUVs, Vans and Light Trucks, and Automotive Parts, 24735-24737 2018-11708
Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Delegation of Special Emergency Procurement Authority, 24888-24890 2018-11341 Micro-Purchase Threshold, 24895-24896 2018-11349 Modification of DFARS Clause Riding Gang Member Requirements, 24891-24892 2018-11344 Repeal of DFARS Clause Right of First Refusal of Employment-Closure of Military Installations, 24892-24894 2018-11346 Repeal of DFARS Provision Alternate A, System for Award Management, 24894-24895 2018-11347 Repeal of Restrictions on Chemical Weapons Antidote, 24890-24891 2018-11343 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Repeal of DFARS Provision Alternative Line Item Structure, 24886-24887 2018-11339 Repeal of DFARS Provision Representation Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons, 24887-24888 2018-11340 PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Contract Closeout Authority, 24897-24898 2018-11342 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24750-24751 2018-11554 2018-11555
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA into Schedule I, 24696-24701 2018-11531 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Migrant Student Information Exchange User Application Form, 24751 2018-11505 Intent To Award Grantback Funds to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, 24751-24754 2018-11592 Election Election Assistance Commission NOTICES Help America Vote Act State Plans: West Virginia, 24754 2018-11498 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Exemptins: BNP Paribas S.A. (BNP Paribas) and Affiliates, and Certain Related Entities, Paris, France, 24822-24832 2018-11473 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 24680-24684 2018-11547 NOTICES Petitions for Waivers: AeroSys Inc., 24762-24767 2018-11543 GD Midea Heating and Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd., 24767-24778 2018-11544 National Comfort Products, Inc., 24754-24762 2018-11542
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Jersey; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, 2012 PM2.5, 1997 Ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 24661-24664 2018-10801 Response to Vacatur of Certain Provisions of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule, 24664-24671 2018-11578 PROPOSED RULES Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, 24850-24883 2018-11059 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Kentucky; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville Unclassifiable Area, 24714-24716 2018-11567 NOTICES Adequacy Status: Indiana Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Area for the Submitted 2008 Ozone Standard Fifteen Percent Rate of Progress Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes, 24799-24800 2018-11585 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24785-24794, 24797-24799 2018-11573 2018-11583 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Continuous Release Reporting Regulations Under CERCLA 1980, 24795-24796 2018-11581 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing, 24784-24785 2018-11545 New Source Performance Standards for Glass Manufacturing Plants, 24794-24795 2018-11546 Charter Renewals: Board of Scientific Counselors, 24796-24797 2018-11576 Funding Availability: Extension of the Application Deadline Date for Credit Assistance Under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program, 24797 2018-11577 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24800 2018-11553 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 24654-24656 2018-11659 Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD 700 2A12 and Model BD 700 2A13 Airplanes; Autobrake System Structural Loads, 24652-24654 2018-11506 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 24690-24694 2018-11421 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 24694-24696 2018-11430 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 24686-24688 2018-11422 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 24688-24690 2018-11426 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: High Density Traffic Airports: Slot Allocation and Transfer Methods, 24842 2018-11569 Airport Property Releases: Scholes International Airport, Galveston, TX, 24841 2018-11467 Exemption Petitions; Summaries: Kitty Hawk Corporation, 24840 2018-11549 Vickers Aircraft Company LTD, 24841 2018-11548 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24800-24801 2018-11534 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES FAST Act Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, 24656-24661 2018-11537 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24778-24779 2018-11523 Certifications: New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities, 24780-24781 2018-11527 Combined Filings, 24779-24780, 24783-24784 2018-11515 2018-11516 2018-11517 Filings: Peter A. Vigue, 24784 2018-11525 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Antelope Expansion 2, LLC, 24781-24782 2018-11518 License Applications: Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC, 24782-24783 2018-11526 Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 24782 2018-11528 Requests Under Blanket Authorization: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC, 24781 2018-11524 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24802-24803 2018-11503 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration RULES Private Investment Project Procedures, 24672-24679 2018-11385 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form, 24718-24719 2018-11477 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nonferrous Metals Surveys, 24817 2018-11510 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

RULES Control of Communicable Diseases, 24671-24672 2018-11539
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program: Fiscal Year 2018 Inflation Factors for Public Housing Agency Renewal Funding, 24815-24817 2018-11587 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

National Park Service

See

Reclamation Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Income Taxes; CFR Correction, 24661 2018-11690 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tax Treatment of Salvage and Reinsurance, 24846 2018-11521 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India, 24737-24740 2018-11710 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan, 24745-24747 2018-11712 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China, 24740-24743 2018-11714 Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea, 24743-24745 2018-11711 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Tool Chests and Cabinets From China and Vietnam, 24820 2018-11522 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Justice Programs Office

Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Partnership Grants Management System, 24822 2018-11479 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

National Credit National Credit Union Administration RULES Involuntary Liquidation of Federal Credit Unions and Claims Procedures, 24651-24652 2018-11588 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 24805-24809 2018-11484 2018-11556 2018-11557 2018-11558 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 24803-24805 2018-11485 2018-11486 2018-11487 2018-11488 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 24810 2018-11559 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 24803 2018-11560 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 24804 2018-11490 National Institute of Mental Health, 24807-24808 2018-11491 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 24805 2018-11562 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 24810 2018-11489 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 24809-24810 2018-11561 Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 24809 2018-11563 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 24817-24819 2018-11530 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Broadband Availability Data, 24747-24749 2018-11483 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Early Site Permit Application, Tennessee Valley Authority Clinch River Nuclear Site; Correction, 24832 2018-11550 Patent Patent and Trademark Office PROPOSED RULES Changes to the Trademark Rules of Practice To Mandate Electronic Filing, 24701-24714 2018-11353 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Space, Commercial Use of; Policy To Streamline Regulations (Space Policy Directive-2 of May 24, 2018), 24899-24903 2018-11769 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Recreation Survey Questions, 24819-24820 2018-11586 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Rural Cooperative Development Grants, 24726-24735 2018-11482 Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grants, 24719-24726 2018-11481 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings: Investor Advisory Committee, 24836-24837 2018-11496 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24834 2018-11630 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 24832-24834 2018-11500 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 24834-24836 2018-11501 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs and Consolidation of Mentor Protege Programs, 24684-24686 2018-11495 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24810-24811 2018-11536 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Trumbull County, OH, 24837 2018-11551 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings: Regional Energy Resource Council, 24838 2018-11519 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Generalized System of Preferences: 2018 GSP Annual Product Review and Initiation of Country Practice Review of Thailand, 24838-24840 2018-11574 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act and Retired Badge/Credential, 24814-24815 2018-11509 TSA End of Course Level 1 Evaluation—Instructor-Led Classroom Training, 24813-24814 2018-11508 Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Country of Origin Determinations: Certain Electric Scissor Lifts, 24811-24813 2018-11504 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Meetings: Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 24847 2018-11502 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 24850-24883 2018-11059 Part III Defense Department, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, 24886-24898 2018-11341 2018-11349 2018-11344 2018-11346 2018-11347 2018-11343 2018-11339 2018-11340 2018-11342 Part IV Presidential Documents, 24899-24903 2018-11769 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.

83 104 Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Rules and Regulations NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 709 RIN 3133-AE82 Involuntary Liquidation of Federal Credit Unions and Claims Procedures AGENCY:

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The NCUA Board (Board) is amending part 709 of its rules to update and clarify the procedures that apply to claims administration for federally insured credit unions that enter involuntary liquidation. Specifically, the final rule amends the payout priority provision by specifying the conditions that claims in the nature of severance must meet to be allowed as provable claims.

DATES:

The rule is effective June 29, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ian Marenna, Senior Trial Attorney, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or telephone: (703) 518-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

Section 1217 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) 1 amended the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) by adding Section 207(b), thereby creating a comprehensive statutory framework for the liquidation of federally insured credit unions.2 Section 207(b)(4) authorizes the Board to “prescribe regulations regarding the allowance or disallowance of claims by the liquidating agent and providing for administrative determination of claims and review of such determination.” 3 In accordance with this authority, the Board adopted part 709 in 1991.4

1 Sec. 1217(a)(3), (4), Public Law 101-73. Sec. 1217(a)(3), (4).

2 12 U.S.C. 1787(b).

3 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(4).

4 56 FR 56925 (Nov. 7, 1991).

Under a separate provision of the FCU Act, the Board is authorized to prohibit or limit “golden parachute payments,” defined to include payments that are contingent on the termination of the party's employment at the credit union and that are made when the credit union is in troubled financial condition.5 Part 750 of the NCUA's regulations contains explicit limitations on the ability of an institution affiliated party to pursue a severance claim with the liquidating agent after a credit union has become insolvent and is placed in conservatorship or liquidation.6

5 12 U.S.C. 1786(t)(4); 12 CFR 750.1(d).

6 12 CFR 750.7.

In January 2018, the Board issued a proposed rule and request for public comment in which it proposed to clarify how the agency will handle severance claims in involuntary liquidations.7 Specifically, the Board proposed to create an exception to the generally applicable bar on severance claims in liquidation that is codified in the NCUA's regulation governing golden parachute payments. As reflected in the proposed regulatory text, the Board proposed to elaborate on the definition of permissible employment-related claims in involuntary liquidations to include vacation, sick, and severance pay if the payment is supported by an employee handbook or other credit union record and is calculable in accordance with a formula or criteria available to all employees. This proposed allowance for some severance claims, as explained in the proposed rule preamble, is an exception to the general rule in part 750 providing that all claims for employee welfare benefits are not provable against the liquidating agent for a failed insured credit union.

7 83 FR 4450 (Jan. 31, 2018).

As explained in the next section, after reviewing the six public comment letters on the proposed rule, the Board adopts the proposal as a final rule without change.

II. Summary of Comments

The NCUA received six comment letters in response to the proposed rule—two from credit union trade organizations, three from credit union leagues and associations, and one from a credit union. All commenters generally supported the proposed rule's purpose of clarifying the relationship between the golden parachute regulation and the involuntary liquidation claims procedures. One commenter suggested that the Board permit separately-negotiated executive agreements to form the basis of allowable severance claims under part 709. The commenter expressed concern that excluding such agreements from the scope of allowable claims under part 709 could affect credit unions' ability to retain executives.

As the proposed regulatory text indicates, the Board proposed to update part 709 to recognize that severance claims meeting specific criteria would be allowable in involuntary liquidation despite the general bar on such payments in part 750. Although the Board recognizes that the specific criteria set forth in the proposed regulatory text may be narrower than all payments that may be permissible or subject to NCUA approval under part 750, it is important to note that, prior to this rulemaking, the regulations provided that all claims for employee welfare benefits are not provable against the liquidating agent.

The proposed rule was designed to allow an exception to the general rule in part 750 but not repeal it. The Board is not persuaded that it should seek to expand the scope of that exception now. Attracting and retaining effective management is an important consideration, but the rule change does not negatively affect this interest. Indeed, it creates more certainty for severance claims in involuntary liquidations and affords the opportunity to all employees to be eligible to claim these benefits when the claims are based on the fair, objective factors described in the proposed regulatory text. The Board notes that this rule only affects involuntary liquidations, which are infrequent, with only five occurring in 2017, for example.8

8 See https://www.ncua.gov/services/Pages/closed-credit-unions/2017.aspx.

Accordingly, the Board adopts the proposed rule without change.

III. Regulatory Procedures Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $100 million in assets). The severance provision imposes no new requirements on credit unions. Instead, it provides a limited exception to an existing regulation that applies to liquidated credit unions. Accordingly, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. Part 709 only concerns credit unions that have failed and imposes no information collection requirements on existing credit unions. Accordingly, there are no PRA implications.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The NCUA does not believe this final rule is a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of SBREFA. The NCUA has submitted the rule to the Office of Management and Budget for its determination in that regard.

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This final rule will clarify certain procedures for the NCUA's administration of liquidated federally insured credit unions. This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The Board has determined that the final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

The NCUA has determined that the final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 709

Credit unions, Involuntary liquidation.

By the National Credit Union Administration Board, on May 24, 2018. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

For the reasons discussed above, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 709 as follows:

PART 709—INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS AND ADJUDICATION OF CREDITOR CLAIMS INVOLVING FEDERALLY INSURED CREDIT UNIONS IN LIQUIDATION 1. The authority citation for part 709 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1757, 1766, 1767, 1786(h), 1786(t), and 1787(b)(4), 1788, 1789, 1789a.

2. Revise paragraph (b)(2) of § 709.5 to read as follows:
§ 709.5 Payout priorities in involuntary liquidation.

(b) * * *

(2) Claims for wages and salaries, including vacation, severance, and sick leave pay; provided, however, that, in accordance with § 750.7 of this chapter, no claim for vacation, severance, or sick leave pay is provable unless entitlement to the benefit is provided for in the credit union employee handbook or other written credit union record, is calculable in accordance with an objective formula, and is available to all employees who meet applicable eligibility requirements, such as minimum length of service, or if such payment is required by applicable state or local law;

[FR Doc. 2018-11588 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0469; Special Conditions No. 25-727-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 Airplanes; Autobrake System Structural Loads AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is an autobrake system that allows earlier braking at landing without pedal input from the pilot. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier on May 30, 2018. Send comments on or before July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2018-0469 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Freisthler, Airframe & Cabin Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3207; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On May 30, 2012, Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier) applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00003NY to include new Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes. These airplanes, which are derivatives of the BD-700 series airplanes currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00003NY, are marketed as the Bombardier Global 7000 and Global 8000, respectively. These airplanes are twin engine, transport category, executive interior business jets with a maximum certified passenger capacity of 19. The maximum takeoff weight for the Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 is 106,250 pounds and 104,800 pounds, respectively.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

The autobrake system on the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes is a pilot-selectable function that allows earlier braking at landing without pedal input from the pilot. When the pilot arms the autobrake system before landing, the system automatically commands braking when the main wheels touch down. This might cause a high nose gear sink rate, and potentially higher gear and airframe loads than would occur with a traditional braking system.

Discussion

These special conditions define a landing pitchover condition that accounts for the effects of the autobrake system. The special conditions define the airplane configuration, speeds, and other parameters necessary to develop airframe and nose gear loads for this condition. The special conditions require that the airplane be designed to support the resulting limit and ultimate loads as defined in § 25.305, “Strength and deformation.”

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and Model BD-700-2A13 airplanes.

Autobraking System Structural Loads

A landing pitchover condition must be addressed that takes into account the effect of the autobrake system. The airplane is assumed to be at the design maximum landing weight, or at the maximum weight allowed with the autobrake system on. The airplane is assumed to land in a tail-down attitude at the speeds defined by § 25.481. Following main gear contact, the airplane is assumed to rotate about the main gear wheels at the highest pitch rate generated by the autobrake system. This is considered a limit load condition from which ultimate loads must also be determined. Loads must be determined for a critical fuel and payload distribution and centers of gravity. Nose gear loads, as well as airframe loads, must be determined. The airplane must support these loads as described in § 25.305.

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 23, 2018. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11506 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0492; Product Identifier 2018-NM-083-AD; Amendment 39-19303; AD 2018-11-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A320-271N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -271NX, -272N and -272NX airplanes. This AD requires replacing certain full authority digital engine control (FADEC) electronic engine controllers (EECs); or installing software standard FCS4.4 and re-identifying the FADEC EECs. This AD was prompted by a report that, when operated at low speed and high engine thrust, an engine did not restart following a fuel interruption shorter than five seconds. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective May 30, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 30, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by July 16, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.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-2018-0492.

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-2018-0492; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3323.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0110, dated May 18, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A320-271N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. The MCAI states:

During certification test flights of an A320-271N aeroplane, it has been identified that, when operated at low speed and high engine thrust, the tested engine did not re-start in case of a fuel interruption shorter than 5 seconds. Investigation revealed that this was due to the software logic implemented in the FADEC EEC of affected A320 family models.

This condition, if not corrected, could prevent restart of a shut down engine while operating in high power conditions [after a single or dual in-flight engine shutdown].

To address this potentially unsafe condition, software (SW) standard FCS4.4 for the FADEC EEC has been developed, and Airbus published the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A320-73-1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018] providing modification instructions.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of aeroplanes by [replacing the affected FADEC EECs or by] installation of this FADEC EEC SW [software] standard [and re-identification of the affected FADEC EECs].

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0492.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-73-1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018. This service information describes procedures for replacing affected FADEC EECs and for installing software standard FCS4.4 and re-identifying affected FADEC EECs. 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 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

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 a FADEC EEC software defect might prevent restart of an engine after a single or dual in-flight engine shutdown under certain conditions. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer 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-2018-0492; Product Identifier 2018-NM-083-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 based on 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 affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs for Required Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Up to 7 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $595 (1) Up to $595 Up to $9,520. 1 We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for parts needed to comply with the 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 to the Director of the System Oversight 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-11-15 Airbus: Amendment 39-19303; Docket No. FAA-2018-0492; Product Identifier 2018-NM-083-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective May 30, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN).

(1) Model A320-271N airplanes.

(2) Model A321-271N, -271NX, -272N and -272NX airplanes.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 72, Turbine/turboprop engine.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a report that, when operated at low speed and high engine thrust, an engine did not restart following a fuel interruption shorter than five seconds. We are issuing this AD to address engines that might not restart while operating in high power conditions after a single or dual in-flight engine shutdown.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

(1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected full authority digital engine control (FADEC) electronic engine controller (EEC) is one with a part number listed in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(1) of This AD—Affected FADEC EEC Part Numbers Affected FADEC EEC part No. 5315126 5315126SK02 5323434 5323745 5323746 5324836 5324836-001 5324836-002 5324837 5325185 5325971 5325975

(2) For the purposes of this AD, Group 1 airplanes are defined as those that have an affected FADEC EEC installed.

(3) For the purposes of this AD, Group 2 airplanes are defined as those that do not have an affected FADEC EEC installed.

(h) Modification

For Group 1 airplanes: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, modify the airplane by replacing affected FADEC EECs installed on both engines with FADEC EEC part number 5327582 (software standard FCS4.4), or by installing software standard FCS4.4 and re-identifying the affected FADEC EEC, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-73-1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018.

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected FADEC EEC on any airplane.

(j) Later-Approved Parts

Installation on an airplane of a FADEC EEC or software standard having a part number approved after the effective date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the conditions in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD are met.

(1) The FADEC EEC or software standard part number must be approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(2) The installation of the FADEC EEC or software standard must be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Clarification of Affected Airplanes

An airplane on which Airbus modification 163473 has been embodied in production is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, provided it can be conclusively determined that no affected FADEC EEC is installed on that airplane.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-73-1128, dated May 15, 2018.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(n) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0110, dated May 18, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0492.

(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3323.

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

(o) 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.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-73-1128, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2018.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.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 23, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11659 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 375 and 388 [Docket No. RM16-15-001; Order No. 833-A] FAST Act Section 61003—Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Critical Energy Infrastructure Information AGENCY:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Order on clarification and rehearing.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in this order on clarification and rehearing grants in part Edison Electric Institute's request for clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing of Order No. 833, and denies rehearing of that order, which amends the Commission's regulations to implement provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act pertaining to the designation, protection, and sharing of Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information.

DATES:

This order is effective July 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nneka Frye, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6029, [email protected] Christopher MacFarlane, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6761, [email protected] Mark Hershfield, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8597, [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 833-A Order on Clarification and Rehearing (Issued May 17, 2018)

1. In Order No. 833, the Commission amended its regulations to implement provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) 1 related to Critical Electric Infrastructure Information.2 In addition, Order No. 833 revised the Commission's Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations.3 Edison Electric Institute (EEI) requested clarification or, in the alternative, rehearing of Order No. 833. For the reasons discussed below, we grant EEI's request for clarification in part and deny rehearing.

1 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, section 61,003, 129 Stat. 1312, 1773-1779 (2015) (codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o-1).

2Regulations Implementing FAST Act Section 61003—Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Amending Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Availability of Certain North American Electric Reliability Corporation Databases to the Commission, Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 (2016), see 81 FR 93732 (Dec. 21, 2016).

3Id.

I. Order No. 833

2. On December 4, 2015, the FAST Act was signed into law. The FAST Act, inter alia, added section 215A to the Federal Power Act (FPA) to improve the security and resilience of energy infrastructure in the face of emergencies. The FAST Act directed the Commission to issue regulations that provide: (1) The criteria and procedures for designating information as Critical Electric Infrastructure Information; (2) a specific prohibition on unauthorized disclosure of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information; (3) sanctions for the knowing and willful unauthorized disclosure of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information by Commission and Department of Energy (DOE) employees; and (4) a process for voluntary sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information.4

4See generally FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, section 61,003, 129 Stat. 1312, 1776.

3. On June 16, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend its regulations to implement the provisions of the FAST Act pertaining to the designation, protection, and sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information and to revise the existing Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations.5 The NOPR proposed that the amended procedures be referred to as the Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII) Procedures.6 In response to the NOPR, nineteen entities filed comments and two entities filed reply comments.

5Regulations Implementing FAST Act Section 61003—Critical Electric Infrastructure Security and Amending Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, 155 FERC ¶ 61,278 (2016) (NOPR), see 81 FR 43557 (July 5, 2016).

6Id.

4. On November 17, 2016, the Commission issued Order No. 833, which amended the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 375.309, 375.313, 388.112 and 388.113 to implement the FAST Act provisions that pertain to the designation, protection and sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information. Order No. 833 also revised the existing Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations. The Commission determined that the amended regulations comply with the requirements of the FAST Act and better ensure the secure treatment of CEII.7

7See generally Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123.

II. Discussion

5. EEI asserts that the Commission either erred or should reconsider five aspects of Order No. 833.8 As discussed below, we grant EEI's request for clarification in part and deny EEI's request for rehearing.

8 EEI Request at 6-7.

A. Requests for Access to CEII Order No. 833

6. The FAST Act required the Commission, taking into account standards of the Electric Reliability Organization, to facilitate voluntary sharing of Critical Electric Infrastructure Information. The statute directed the Commission to facilitate voluntary sharing with, between, and by Federal, State, political subdivision, and tribal authorities; the Electric Reliability Organization; regional entities; information sharing and analysis centers established pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive 63; owners, operators, and users of critical electric infrastructure in the United States; and other entities determined appropriate by the Commission.9

9 FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, section 61,003, 129 Stat. 1312, 1776.

7. In Order No. 833, the Commission established procedures in its regulations for providing CEII to third parties. Specifically, in § 388.113(f), the Commission established a process for the Commission to voluntarily share CEII when there is a need to ensure energy infrastructure is protected. Separately, in § 388.113(g), the Commission revised its long-standing procedures for members of the public to request access to CEII by requiring a statement demonstrating a valid and legitimate need for the information.10 Both processes contain procedures to notify submitters of the CEII of the Commission's prospective sharing of its CEII as well as a requirement that prospective CEII recipients execute Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA).

10 The CEII request procedures found in § 388.113(g) were first established under the Commission's Critical Energy Infrastructure Information regulations in 2003. See Critical Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 630, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,140, order on reh'g, Order No. 630-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,147 (2003).

8. The Commission also stated that the procedures do not impose a sharing requirement on entities; instead, the provisions allow the Commission to exercise discretion to share CEII that has already been submitted to, or generated by, the Commission.11 Further, the Commission determined that even if the Commission's voluntary sharing of information were viewed as the same as a third-party sharing it, the Commission must balance its obligation to disclose information as necessary to carry out the Commission's jurisdictional responsibilities against an entity's preference not to have information disclosed.12

11 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 125.

12Id. P 126.

Request

9. EEI states that the Commission should reconsider its determination that CEII can be shared over the objections of submitters.13 EEI asserts that section 215A(d)(2)(D) of the FPA directs the Commission only to facilitate voluntary sharing “by and between” entities. EEI contends that the Commission's ability to share information over a submitter's objection, as provided in 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(iii), amounts to involuntary sharing not intended by the FAST Act and in violation of FPA section 215A(d)(6).14 EEI asserts that, by using section 215A(d)(2)(D) to authorize the Commission to provide CEII over the submitter's objection, the Commission is using the FAST Act to “share” CEII in an involuntary manner. EEI states that its interpretation is consistent with Congress' decision to make CEII exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).15

13 EEI Request at 7.

14Id.

15See 5 U.S.C. 552 as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (2016).

Commission Determination

10. We deny clarification and rehearing of this issue. We disagree with EEI's contention that the FAST Act only directs the voluntary sharing of CEII “by and between” entities or that the Commission's release of information over a submitter's objections constitutes “involuntary” sharing of such information. EEI misconstrues FPA section 215A(d)(2)(D) to argue that the statute's directives regarding voluntary sharing do not include voluntary sharing of CEII by the Commission. Such a reading is inconsistent with the FAST Act in two respects.

11. First, FPA section 215A(d)(2)(D)(i) provides that the Commission's regulations should “facilitate voluntary sharing of critical electric infrastructure information with, between, and by—(i) Federal, State, political subdivision, and tribal authorities . . .” It would be incongruous to read the FAST Act's reference to “voluntary sharing . . . by . . . Federal . . . authorities” not to include voluntary sharing by the Commission of CEII in its possession. Second, the FAST Act did not direct the Commission to curtail or eliminate the established, pre-existing process for providing members of the public with access to CEII, which is provided in 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(iii).

12. Even before the FAST Act, the Commission's regulations included a process whereby the Commission's CEII Coordinator had the discretion to share, in certain circumstances, CEII that was submitted to, or generated by, the Commission.16 Under both the prior regulations and the revised regulations at 18 CFR 388.113(d)(1)(vi), a submitter is, as EEI acknowledges, provided an opportunity to comment on the potential disclosure of its CEII.17 Prior to any determination to release CEII to a requester, pursuant to 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(iii), the CEII Coordinator will take into consideration any objections and “will balance the requester's need for the information against the sensitivity of the information.” Other than characterizing a determination by the CEII Coordinator to ultimately release CEII over an objection as “involuntary sharing,” EEI does not propose any change to the Commission's long-standing approach nor does EEI demonstrate that the FAST Act is intended to restrict the Commission from sharing CEII, under an NDA, with third parties that have a valid and legitimate need for the material.18

16 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 125.

17 EEI's argument pertains to the CEII request process found in 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5) of the Commission's regulations. To the extent that EEI's argument indirectly relates to the separate voluntary sharing provisions found in § 388.113(f), its argument does not persuade us to grant rehearing on that section for the same reasons as those provided above. For example, under § 388.113(f), except in exigent circumstances, submitters are provided notice prior to release of CEII and may submit comments. In the event of an exigency like a national security issue, the Commission will provide notice of the disclosure to the submitter of CEII as soon as practicable.

18 EEI's interpretation suggests that the determination as to whether it is appropriate for the Commission to share CEII should be entirely in the hands of the submitter. Such an approach is inconsistent with the FAST Act as it could limit the Commission's ability to share CEII. In any event, pursuant to § 388.113(d)(1)(iv), a submitter is provided notice of release of CEII under 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(iii), and a submitter who disagrees with the determination providing notice of the release of its CEII has the ability to seek injunctive relief in district court.

13. In addition, our reading of the FAST Act is consistent with EEI's statement that “[u]nder the plain meaning of the FAST Act statute, the term `voluntary' means the Commission should implement an information sharing process that allows owners to share information intentionally and freely.” 19 The new voluntary sharing provisions, at 18 CFR 388.113(f) of the Commission's CEII regulations, only govern the process by which the Commission will voluntarily share CEII that has been submitted to the Commission or generated by staff.20 Before the FAST Act and under the revised regulations, entities remain free to share the CEII that they submitted to the Commission with others.

19 EEI Request at 7.

20 As to sharing of CEII by CEII recipients, under our NDAs, CEII recipients may only share CEII with other individuals covered by our NDA for the same information.

14. Finally, we disagree with EEI's assertion that its interpretation of the FAST Act's “voluntary sharing” provisions is consistent with Congress' creation of a FOIA exemption for CEII.21 The Commission's FOIA program and the voluntary sharing contemplated under the FAST Act serve different purposes, with the former serving to support government transparency 22 and the latter governing how certain sensitive information is identified, secured, and shared to support the security and resilience of critical energy infrastructure. We do not agree that the new FOIA exemption protecting against mandatory public disclosure of CEII in response to a FOIA request suggests that Congress also intended to prohibit any sharing of that CEII without the submitter's consent. Rather, the regulations adopted in Order No. 833 struck an appropriate balance between the FAST Act's provisions protecting CEII from public disclosure with the provisions providing that CEII may be voluntarily shared with certain third parties. Thus, while the FOIA exemption prevents the disclosure of CEII in response to a FOIA request, we disagree with EEI's assertion that the exemption was intended to preclude the Commission from exercising its discretion to share CEII pursuant to the established procedures in 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(iii).

21 EEI Request at 7-8.

22See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978) (“The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.”).

B. Criteria for Responding to CEII Requests Order No. 833

15. In Order No. 833, the Commission concluded that the FAST Act does not require changes to the Commission's existing process for accessing CEII.23 The Commission also decided to maintain its balancing approach when determining whether to provide CEII to individuals who demonstrated a need for access to CEII under an executed NDA.24 The Commission noted that a request for access to CEII is case specific to the unique facts and circumstances of each request and, therefore, declined to provide additional guidance and criteria about how it will respond to individual CEII requests under 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5).25

23 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 144.

24Id. P 143.

25 The Commission, however, outlined the information that an individual seeking access to CEII under 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5) must include in an accompanying statement of need. See id.

Request

16. EEI asserts that the Commission erred by declining to provide or clarify the criteria that the Commission will use to determine whether a member of the public is eligible to obtain CEII from the Commission.26 EEI claims that such clarification will provide clear guidance to Commission staff about when a member of the public may receive CEII and afford a better understanding to submitters about the “benefits or risks involved in providing CEII to the Commission.” 27 EEI also contends that “criteria stating that the Commission will consider public safety benefits before releasing CEII to the public may provide CEII submitters with greater reasons to voluntarily provide CEII to the Commission.” 28

26 EEI Request at 6 (averring that nothing in § 388.113(g)(5)(iii) identifies any criteria that the Commission will use before disclosing CEII to a requester).

27Id. at 9.

28Id.

Commission Determination

17. We grant clarification and deny rehearing of this issue. We continue to believe that the Commission has provided sufficient detail on the circumstances in which the Commission will share CEII.29 The CEII regulations enable “individuals with a valid or legitimate need to access certain sensitive energy infrastructure information” that would otherwise be exempt under FOIA.30

29See, e.g., 18 CFR 388.113(f) (2017) (providing the procedures for voluntary sharing), § 388.113(g) (providing procedures for accessing CEII).

30 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 3.

18. Since instituting the CEII process in 2003, the Commission has acquired significant experience in processing CEII requests. In particular, the Commission routinely processes CEII requests from, among others, consultants, academics, landowners, and public interest groups. In implementing the provisions of the FAST Act, the Commission is utilizing its vast experience in addressing the various interests of CEII requestors and submitters as well.

19. Furthermore, we disagree with EEI's assertion that the Commission failed to provide any criteria that the CEII Coordinator will use to determine whether a member of the public is eligible to access CEII. As explained in Order No. 833, the Commission has utilized a “balancing approach effectively in response to Critical Energy Infrastructure Information requests for almost fifteen years. The balancing approach has provided to individuals with a demonstrated need access to information subject to a NDA.” 31 Consistent with long-standing practice, § 388.113(g)(5)(iii) states that the “CEII Coordinator will balance the requester's need for the information against the sensitivity of the information.”

31Id. P 143.

20. Contrary to EEI's assertion, in the NOPR and in Order No. 833, we provided clarification regarding the criteria for obtaining CEII by outlining information that a CEII requester must include in its statement of need.32 We also stated that a conclusory statement of need by a CEII requester will not suffice.33 Moreover, we note that a request for access to CEII is case specific to the unique facts and circumstances of each request.

32 18 CFR 388.113(g)(5)(i)(B).

33Id.

21. In its filing, EEI provides one suggestion (i.e., “public safety benefits”) concerning how the Commission can enhance the criteria to determine whether a member of the public is eligible to obtain CEII from the Commission.34 We clarify that public safety benefits are one criterion that the CEII Coordinator should consider, as part of the balancing approach described above, in determining whether to share CEII in a particular instance. Overall, we believe that our approach provides sufficient detail on the circumstances in which the Commission will share CEII, while also providing the CEII Coordinator with enough specificity and flexibility to respond to each individual request for CEII.

34 EEI Request at 9.

C. Non-Disclosure Agreement Order No. 833

22. Order No. 833 included revisions to strengthen the CEII handling requirements for both Commission staff and external recipients. As part of those revisions, the Commission established minimum requirements for the NDAs that recipients of CEII must execute before receiving access to CEII. The Commission explained that the minimum requirements for an NDA are not exhaustive and do not preclude other requirements.35 Further, the Commission stated that additional provisions may be added to the NDA and submitters may request additional provisions.36 In response to NOPR comments, the Commission amended § 388.113(h)(2) to add a provision to require CEII recipients to promptly report all unauthorized disclosures of CEII to the Commission.37

35 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 92.

36Id.

37Id. P 93.

Request

23. EEI states that the Commission should consider “modernizing the Commission's CEII NDA even further to mitigate against the risk of a CEII recipient involuntarily sharing CEII with a hostile actor.” 38 EEI identifies one example of how the Commission may change the CEII NDA. While acknowledging the “incident response clause” in § 388.113(h)(2), EEI suggests that the clause could be changed to require the reporting of unauthorized disclosures that actually occurred or “those reasonably suspected to have occurred.” 39

38 EEI Request at 10-11.

39Id. at 10.

Commission Determination

24. We grant clarification and deny rehearing on this issue. Order No. 833 explained that § 388.113(h)(2) only includes “`minimum' requirements for a NDA and is not intended to be exhaustive or preclude additional provisions, as needed.” 40 As the Commission stated in Order No. 833, under certain circumstances the Commission may add additional provisions to the NDA and submitters may request that additional provisions be added to the NDA.41 While we decline to make any changes to the minimum requirements for the NDA, the Commission reiterates that the CEII Coordinator may consider adding additional provisions to the NDA on a case by case basis. However, to the extent EEI seeks a specific change to the NDA or requests that the Commission take further comment on revisions to the NDA at this time, we deny those requests. EEI has not demonstrated that the NDA revisions that we have adopted, or the fact that we will entertain further changes to the NDA as appropriate, are unreasonable or arbitrary.

40 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 92.

41Id. P 92.

D. Designation of Commission-Generated Information Order No. 833

25. In Order No. 833, the Commission determined that for Commission-generated information, the CEII Coordinator, after consultation with the appropriate Office Director, will determine whether the information is CEII.42 The Commission concluded that stakeholder participation in CEII designations of Commission-generated information is unnecessary because the Commission has the expertise and experience to make such determinations.43 The Commission also noted that in certain instances it would be inappropriate for stakeholders to be privy to Commission-generated information that potentially qualified as CEII.44 Finally, the Commission stated that an entity is not precluded from raising concerns with the CEII Coordinator when an entity believes that Commission-generated information contains CEII about its facility.45

42Id. P 59.

43Id. P 60.

44Id.

45Id. P 61.

Request

26. EEI requests that the Commission clarify the existing procedures or provide the anticipated procedure for stakeholder “notification of, and opportunity to comment on, potential disclosure or sharing of Commission-generated information.” 46 EEI asserts that the Commission erred by failing to provide a process for an entity to comment on the possible disclosure or sharing of Commission-generated CEII.47 EEI contends that the Commission may incorporate a submitter's CEII in a Commission-generated CEII document that is released to a CEII requester without providing the submitter any opportunity to comment.

46 EEI Request at 6.

47Id.

27. EEI also contends that the Commission could create a document that combines information that alone did not constitute CEII and was not submitted to the Commission as such, but that combined with other information could constitute CEII.48 EEI states that in that instance, the submitter would not have had an opportunity to mark the information as CEII.49 EEI maintains that, in these situations, it would be inconsistent for the Commission not to provide notice and an opportunity to comment.50

48Id. at 13.

49Id.

50Id. at 13-14.

Commission Determination

28. We grant clarification and deny rehearing on this issue. The FAST Act implicitly recognizes that the Commission has the expertise and experience to determine whether any information, including Commission-generated information, is properly designated as CEII by vesting the Commission with the authority to designate information as CEII. The FAST Act does not require, and EEI identifies no provision in the FAST Act requiring, the Commission to provide notice and opportunity for public comment about the prospective release or sharing of Commission-generated CEII. Furthermore, the Commission is not persuaded that we should establish a requirement for stakeholder input when the Commission combines information not filed as CEII with other information and potentially creates CEII.

29. To the contrary, inherent differences between Commission-generated CEII and CEII from submitters, as well as practical considerations, warrant different procedures. As EEI acknowledges, there are circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for an outside entity to comment on the content of a non-public, Commission-generated CEII document. Nonetheless, EEI asks the Commission to develop a “consistent process” for stakeholder participation. We disagree and believe that crafting a broad notification requirement for each Commission-generated document that discusses CEII in some respect would be impractical and, as we noted in Order No. 833, often inappropriate.51

51 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 61. For example, Commission-generated documents may include other forms of non-public information such as pre-decisional, internal deliberations covered by the Deliberative Process Privilege. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)(2017) (protecting from disclosure “intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”); see Russell v. Dep't of the Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045, 1048 (D.C. Cir. 1982); see also Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87 (1973) (recognizing that “[i]t would be impossible to have any frank discussions of legal or policy matters in writing if all such writings were to be subjected to public scrutiny”).

30. Therefore, EEI's arguments do not persuade us that a formal, mandatory stakeholder process is needed to comment on the release or sharing of Commission-generated CEII. We, however, clarify that nothing in the FAST Act or the Commission's CEII regulations prevents the CEII Coordinator from exercising discretion in an individual situation to solicit comments from a submitter of CEII or other information when evaluating whether to release a Commission-generated CEII document. We note that even if the Commission determines to release Commission-generated CEII, such a release would be pursuant to an NDA and the Commission's protections against further unwarranted or prohibited disclosure.

E. DOE's Criteria and Procedures for What Constitutes CEII Order No. 833

31. In Order No. 833, the Commission declined to revise the CEII regulations to identify specific designation criteria and CEII procedures for DOE.52 The Commission stated that the FAST Act does not compel DOE to make changes to its regulations and noted that nothing within the Commission's regulations limits DOE's ability to designate CEII in accordance with the FAST Act.53

52 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 39.

53Id.

Request

32. EEI asserts that the Commission erred in declining to provide or clarify the applicability of any procedure or process for stakeholders regarding DOE designations of its information as CEII.54 Specifically, EEI requests that the Commission confirm that DOE determinations regarding CEII will be conducted pursuant to the Commission's CEII regulations.55 EEI further requests that if that is not the case, the Commission should clarify that position, so EEI can seek further clarification from DOE as to the applicable procedures and criteria DOE intends to use for such determinations.56

54 EEI Request at 7.

55Id. at 16.

56Id.

Commission Determination

33. We deny rehearing on this issue. In Order No. 833, the Commission declined to revise our regulations to identify specific designation criteria and CEII procedures that would be required for DOE.57 EEI's argument here does not persuade us to change that determination. Specifically, section 215A(d)(3) of the FAST Act provides that information “may be designated” by the Commission and DOE pursuant to the criteria and procedures that the Commission establishes.58 As explained in Order No. 833, nothing within the FAST Act compels DOE to make changes to its regulations, and nothing in the Commission's regulations limits DOE's ability to designate information in accordance with the FAST Act.59

57 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 39.

58 FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, section 61,003, 129 Stat. 1312, 1776.

59 Order No. 833, 157 FERC ¶ 61,123 at P 39 (citing NOPR, 155 FERC ¶ 61,278 at P 16 n.12).

The Commission Orders

EEI's request for clarification is hereby granted in part and EEI's request for rehearing is denied, as discussed in the body of this order.

By the Commission.

Issued: May 17, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11537 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 Income Taxes CFR Correction In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§§ 1.140 to 1.169), revised as of April 1, 2018, on page 88, in § 1.148-1, paragraph (e)(3) is reinstated to read as follows:
§ 1.148-1 Definitions and elections.

(e) * * *

(3) Certain hedges. Investment-type property also includes the investment element of a contract that is a hedge (within the meaning of § 1.148-4(h)(2)(i)(A)) and that contains a significant investment element because a payment by the issuer relates to a conditional or unconditional obligation by the hedge provider to make a payment on a later date. See § 1.148-4(h)(2)(ii) relating to hedges with a significant investment element.

[FR Doc. 2018-11690 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0625, FRL-9978-24—Region 2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, 2012 PM2.5, 1997 Ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittal regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide, 2010 sulfur dioxide, 2011 carbon monoxide, 2006 particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and 2012 particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is also approving three infrastructure requirements of the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on June 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0625. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3892, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents I. What is the background for this action? II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed action? III. What action is the EPA taking? IV. Incororation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action?

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), each state is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a revised primary or secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard). CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require each state to make a new SIP submission within three years after the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS for approval into the existing federally-approved SIP to assure that the SIP meets the applicable requirements for such new and revised NAAQS.

On March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8818), the EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register for the State of New Jersey. The NPR proposed to approve elements of the State of New Jersey's Infrastructure SIP submission, dated October 17, 2014, and as supplemented on March 15, 2017, as meeting the CAA section 110(a) infrastructure requirements for the following NAAQS: 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2011 carbon monoxide (CO), 2006 particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and 2012 particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). Although not specifically required by 110(a)(1) since neither NAAQS was new or revised,1 the SIP submission included infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM10 and 2011 CO NAAQS. As explained in the NPR, the State has the necessary infrastructure, resources and general authority to implement the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, except where specifically noted.

1 EPA notes that, when promulgated, the 2006 24 hour PM10 NAAQS and the 2011 primary CO NAAQS were neither “new” nor “revised” NAAQS—they merely retained, without revision, prior NAAQS for those pollutants. Accordingly, promulgation of these NAAQS did not trigger a new obligation for New Jersey to make infrastructure SIP submissions.

The EPA also proposed to approve three CAA section 110(a) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that were conditionally approved by the EPA on June 14, 2013 (78 FR 35764). New Jersey's response to the conditional approval was not submitted to EPA within one year, but was submitted approximately three months late, and supplemented on March 15, 2017, so the conditional approval is treated as a disapproval. The EPA also proposed to approve New Jersey's October 17, 2014 submittal, as supplemented on March 15, 2017, for the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Other detailed information relevant to this action on New Jersey's infrastructure SIP submission, the requirements of infrastructure SIPs and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and the associated Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket and are not restated here.

II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed action?

In response to the EPA's March 1, 2018 proposed rulemaking on New Jersey's infrastructure SIP submission dated October 17, 2014, and as supplemented on March 15, 2017, the EPA received fifteen comments from the public during the 30-day public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. None of the comments raise issues germane to the EPA's proposed action. For this reason, the EPA will not provide a specific response to the comments. The comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0625 on the http://www.regulations.gov website.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

The EPA is approving New Jersey's infrastructure submittal dated October 17, 2014, as supplemented on March 15, 2017, for the 2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5. NAAQS, respectively, as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including specifically sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (with the exception of program requirements for PSD and the permitting program for minor sources and minor modifications), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD and visibility), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA.

The EPA is not taking action on the following elements that are not germane to infrastructure SIPs: sections 110(a)(2)(C) (sub-element related to nonattainment permitting); 110(a)(2)(I); and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). In addition, with respect to 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA previously took action on CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) [prongs 3 and 4] and will take action on CAA element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) [prongs 1 and 2] at a later date. As noted in the NPR, New Jersey withdrew the portion of its October 17, 2014 SIP submission addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Also, with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5. NAAQS, the EPA is approving that New Jersey has met the infrastructure SIP requirements pertaining to sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) [conflict of interest] and (E)(iii) [oversight of local governments and local authorities]; and with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, we are approving that New Jersey has met the infrastructure SIP requirements pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(G) [emergency powers].

The EPA is deleting the deficiency at 40 CFR 52.1579 because the deficiency identified is resolved by the approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) for each of the NAAQS indicated in this action.

In addition, the EPA is incorporating into the New Jersey SIP the following regulation and statutes:

N.J.S.A. 52:13D-14, 52:13D-16(a)-(b) and 52:13D-21(n) “New Jersey's Conflict of Interest Law,” 2

2 N.J.S.A. 52:13D-14 (effective January 11, 1972). 52:13D-16 (effective January 11, 1972); most recent amendment to 52:13D-16, (September 16, 1996). 52:13D-21 (effective January 11, 1972), subsection 52:13D-21(n) (effective March 15, 2006).

N.J.A.C 7:27-12, “Prevention and Control of Air Pollution Emergencies.” 3

3 N.J.A.C 7:27-12 (state effective October 24, 1969 as amended May 20, 1974).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the regulation and statutes identified at the bottom of Section III of this rule. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.4

4 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 30, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 8, 2018. Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator, Region 2.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart FF—New Jersey 2. In § 52.1570: a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by: i. Revising the table heading; ii. Revising the entry for “Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 12”; and iii. Adding entries for “N.J.S.A. 52:13D-14,” “52:13D-16(a)-(b),” and “52:13D-21(n)” at the end of the table; and b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for “NJ Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, 2012 PM2.5, 1997 Ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Standards” at the end of the table.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 52.1570 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved New Jersey State Regulations and Laws State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 12 Prevention and Control of Air Pollution Emergencies May 20, 1974 May 30, 2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * N.J.S.A. 52:13D-14 New Jersey's Conflict of Interest Law January 11, 1972 May 30, 2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] N.J.S.A.52:13D-16(a)-(b) New Jersey's Conflict of Interest Law September 16, 1996 May 30, 2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] N.J.S.A. 52:13D-21(n) New Jersey's Conflict of Interest Law March 15, 2006 May 30, 2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]

(e) * * *

EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions SIP element Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • New Jersey
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval
  • date
  • Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * NJ Infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, 2012 PM2.5, 1997 Ozone, and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Standards State-wide October 17, 2014 and supplemented on March 15, 2017 May 30, 2018, [Insert Federal Register citation]
    § 52.1579 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Section 52.1579 is removed and reserved. 4. Section 52.1586 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); b. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3); and c. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(1).

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    § 52.1586 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Approval. In a February 25, 2008 submittal and supplemented on January 15, 2010, and in an October 17, 2014 submittal, as supplemented on March 15, 2017, New Jersey certified that the State has satisfied the Clean Air Act (CAA) infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (enforcement program only), (D)(i)(II) prong 4 (visibility), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * * Submittal from New Jersey dated October 17, 2014, as supplemented on March 15, 2017, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2012 PM2.5, 2006 PM10, and 2011 CO NAAQS is approved for (A), (B), (C) (enforcement program only), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (consultation and public notification only), (K), (L), and (M).

    [FR Doc. 2018-10801 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 [EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0185; FRL-9977-56-OLEM] Response to Vacatur of Certain Provisions of the Definition of Solid Waste Rule AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is revising regulations associated with the definition of solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These revisions implement vacaturs ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), on July 7, 2017, as modified on March 6, 2018.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on May 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0185. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center. See https://www.epa.gov/dockets/epa-docket-center-reading-room for more information on the Public Reading Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, MC 5304P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, Tracy Atagi, at (703) 308-8672, ([email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Outline I. General Information II. Statutory Authority III. Which regulations is EPA removing and replacing? IV. When will the final rule become effective? V. State Authorization VI. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This final rule applies to facilities that generate or recycle hazardous secondary materials (HSM). According to the revisions to the definition of solid waste promulgated in 2015, entities potentially affected by the original rule include over 5,000 industrial facilities in 634 industries (at the 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code level).1 Most of these 634 industries have relatively few entities that are potentially affected. The top-5 economic sectors (at the 2-digit NAICS code level) with the largest number of potentially affected entities are as follows: (1) 41% in NAICS code 33—the manufacturing sector, which consists of metals, metal products, machinery, computer & electronics, electrical equipment, transportation equipment, furniture, and miscellaneous manufacturing subsectors, (2) 23% in NAICS code 32—the manufacturing sector, which consists of wood products, paper, printing, petroleum & coal products, chemicals plastics & rubber products, and nonmetallic mineral products manufacturing subsectors, (3) 3.0% in NAICS code 92—the public administration sector, (4) 2.9% in NAICS code 61—the educational services sector, and (5) 2.8% in NAICS code 54—the professional, scientific and technical services sector.

    1 80 FR 1694/2, January 13, 2015.

    B. Why is EPA issuing a final rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for revising these provisions without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because these revisions simply undertake the ministerial task of implementing court orders vacating these rules and reinstating the prior versions. As a matter of law, the orders issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 7, 2017 and amended on March 6, 2018, (1) vacated the 2015 verified recycler exclusion for hazardous waste that is recycled off-site (except for certain provisions); (2) reinstated the transfer-based exclusion from the 2008 rule to replace the now-vacated 2015 verified recycler exclusion; (3) upheld the containment and emergency preparedness provisions of the 2015 rule; (4) vacated Factor 4 of the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling in its entirety; and (5) reinstated the 2008 version of Factor 4 to replace the now-vacated 2015 version of Factor 4.2 It is, therefore, unnecessary to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on this action, which merely carries out the court's orders.

    2API v. EPA, 862 F.3d 50 (DC Cir. 2017), reh'g granted, No. 09-1038, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5613 (DC Cir. Mar. 6, 2018).

    In addition, EPA finds that it has good cause to make the revisions immediately effective under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), and section 3010(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b). Section 553(d) provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, “except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause,” among other exceptions. The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an agency should “balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.” Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule effective immediately because this action merely implements court orders that vacate certain regulatory provisions and reinstate the prior versions. The court issued the mandate for its decision on March 14, 2018, at which point the orders became effective. Delaying the effectiveness of this rulemaking would lengthen the period between the change in the law (i.e., the court's mandate) and the corresponding update to the regulations. Minimizing that time period should reduce the possibility of confusion for the regulated community, state and local governments, and the public. Moreover, the Agency believes that delaying the effectiveness of this rule would not offer any benefits. As a result, EPA is making this rule immediately effective.

    II. Statutory Authority

    These regulations are promulgated under the authority of sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3006, 3010, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) This statute is commonly referred to as “RCRA.”

    III. Which regulations is EPA removing and replacing? A. Removal of the 2015 Verified Recycler Exclusion and Reinstatement of the 2008 Transfer-Based Exclusion, With Modifications

    In the 2015 DSW rule, EPA replaced the 2008 DSW rule transfer-based exclusion found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)-(25) with the verified recycler exclusion, found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24).3 (The goal of both exclusions was to exempt from regulation off-site recycling of hazardous waste when certain conditions are met). In promulgating the 2015 verified recycler exclusion EPA made four key changes to the language of the 2008 transfer-based exclusion: (1) Removed a prohibition that had made certain spent petroleum catalysts (hazardous waste codes K171 and K172) ineligible for the new recycling exclusions (i.e., these materials became eligible under the 2015 exclusion); (2) added a specific “contained” standard for the management of the materials prior to being recycled; (3) added emergency preparedness and response requirements; and (4) replaced a requirement for generators to make a “reasonable effort” to audit the recycling facility prior to sending their material to be recycled with a requirement that the recycling facility obtain a variance from the regulations prior to accepting the recyclable materials.

    3 The Federal Register citation for the “2015 DSW rule” is 80 FR 1694, January 13, 2015, and for the “2008 DSW rule” is 73 FR 64668, October 30, 2008.

    In its decisions vacating the 2015 verified recycler exclusion and ordering the reinstatement of the 2008 transfer-based exclusion, the court found that the first three provisions noted above were severable from the rest of the verified recycler exclusion and would not be affected by the vacatur. Instead, these provisions are retained in the reinstated transfer-based exclusion found in the revised version of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) being finalized with this action. In addition, the export requirements for the transfer-based exclusion found at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) are also reinstated.4 Finally, the following conforming changes are made in response to the vacatur of the verified recycler exclusion and reinstatement of the transfer-based exclusion (1) references to the verified recycler variance process are removed from 40 CFR 260.30 and 40 CFR 260.31, (2) the reference to the financial assurance notification requirement reinstated under the transfer-based exclusion is added back into 40 CFR 260.42(a)(5), and (3) the language in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) is updated to reflect the fact that subsequent to the 2015 withdrawal of the transfer-based exclusion, the applicable export definitions were moved to 40 CFR 262.81, and the paper submittal of RCRA export notices and export annual reports was replaced with electronic submittal via EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS). (81 FR 85696, November 28, 2016; 82 FR 41015, August 29, 2017).

    4 The court characterized the 2008 transfer-based exclusion this way: “EPA adopted the first edition, the Transfer-Based Exclusion, as part of its 2008 Rule . . . previously codified at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24)-(25) (2014).” API, 862 F.3d at 64. The court's citation encompasses both the domestic (i.e., paragraph (a)(24) and export (i.e., paragraph (a)(25)) parts of the exclusion. The court then concluded that “the [2008] Transfer-Based Exclusion is reinstated.” Id. at 75. Consequently, this action includes both paragraphs (a)(24) and (25).

    B. Removal of the 2015 Factor Four in the Definition of Legitimate Recycling and Reinstatement of the 2008 Factor Four

    In the 2015 DSW rule, EPA revised the definition of legitimate recycling found at 40 CFR 260.43, which was originally promulgated in the 2008 DSW rule. In both the 2008 and 2015 versions of the regulation, the legitimacy provision was designed to distinguish between real recycling activities—legitimate recycling—and “sham” recycling, an activity undertaken by an entity to avoid the requirements of managing a hazardous secondary material as a hazardous waste. This provision represented the codification of a long-standing policy prohibiting sham recycling which had previously been applied via Federal Register preamble and guidance documents, most notably through the 1989 “Lowrance memo” which discussed over a dozen factors to be considered.

    The existing policy in that 1998 memo was condensed and codified into regulation in 2008 as four separate factors, summarized as follows. Factor 1 addresses the concept that legitimate recycling involves a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful contribution to the recycling process, or to a product or intermediate of the recycling process. Factor 2 addresses the concept that the legitimate recycling process produces a valuable product or intermediate. Factor 3 addresses the concept that under legitimate recycling, the generator and the recycler manages the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is under their control. Factor 4 addresses the concept that the product of the recycling process is comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate in terms of hazardous constituents or characteristics. Under the 2008 rule, the first two factors had to be satisfied while the latter two factors had to be considered. In addition, the codified legitimacy test only applied to the then-new Generator-Controlled and Transfer-based exclusions, and to non-waste determinations under 260.34. See 40 CFR 260.43(b), (c) (2008).

    The 2015 revisions made the following changes to the four legitimacy factors: (1) All four factors were made to apply to all excluded recycling, including recycling exclusions that predated the 2008 rule (2) Factors 3 and 4 became mandatory factors (in the 2008 rule, they were merely factors to be “considered”), and (3) the substance of Factors 3 and 4 changed to add flexibility since the factors had become mandatory.

    In its decisions, the Court vacated Factor 4, but left in place all other 2015 changes to the legitimacy factors. The net result is as follows: (1) The 2015 version of Factor 4 is vacated in its entirety; (2) the 2015 change making the legitimacy factors applicable to all exclusions remains; (3) Factor 3 remains mandatory per the 2015 changes; and (4) the 2008 version of Factor 4 (which requires only that the factor be “considered”) replaces the now-vacated 2015 version. In addition, a reference in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(ii)(E) requiring documentation of how “all four factors in 40 CFR 260.43(a) are met” has been revised to conform with the court decisions.

    IV. When will the final rule become effective?

    The revisions to 40 CFR 260.42, 40 CFR 260.43, 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24); the reinstatement of 261.4(a)(25), and the removal of 40 CFR 260.30(f) and 260.31(d) are effective immediately.

    V. State Authorization A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the state in lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the state. A state may receive authorization by following the approval process described in 40 CFR 271.21 (see 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization). EPA continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized state also continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.

    After a state receives initial authorization, new federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent state requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated under HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. As such, EPA carries out the HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the state to do so.

    Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing federal requirements. Under RCRA section 3009, states may impose standards that are more stringent than those in the federal program (see also 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized states are not required to adopt new federal regulations that are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations or that narrow the scope of the RCRA program. Previously authorized hazardous waste regulations would continue to apply in those states that do not adopt “deregulatory” rules.

    B. Effect on State Authorization of D.C. Circuit Court Vacaturs

    On March 14, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued its mandate, effectuating the vacaturs as described earlier in this document. The court's vacaturs mean that the vacated provisions of these federal rules are legally null and void and the corresponding regulatory requirements that were previously in effect are reinstated as if the vacated parts of the rules never existed. At the federal level, because the effect of the vacaturs means, in essence, that the vacated provisions of these rules should not have been promulgated, this Federal Register action serves to remove the vacated provisions from the federal regulations and replaces them with the regulations that were previously in effect. At the state level, because no state rules were challenged in the litigation, the court decision does not directly affect any state regulations. However, the vacaturs do have an impact on the authorization status of state regulations. The multiple scenarios that exist in the states are discussed below.

    1. States Without Final RCRA Authorization

    For states and territories that have no RCRA authorization, the vacaturs mean that the reinstated federal rules are now effect in those states and this Federal Register action alerts interested parties of the removal of the vacated parts of the rules from the Code of Federal Regulations and their replacement with the previously promulgated provisions.

    2. States That Have Final Authorization But Did Not Promulgate Similar Rules

    For states and territories that have RCRA authorization but did not adopt the 2015 verified recycler exclusion (and therefore were not authorized for the exclusion), these states are not required to adopt or become authorized for the transfer-based exclusion being reinstated today because the transfer-based exclusion is less stringent than full Subtitle C hazardous waste regulation.

    However, states and territories that have RCRA authorization but have not adopted the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling at 40 CFR 260.43 are required to adopt and become authorized for a definition of legitimate recycling that is equivalent to and at least as stringent as the definition being promulgated today.

    3. States That Adopted Similar Rules But Are Not Yet Authorized for Them

    For states that have adopted rules similar to the verified recycler exclusion and the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling, but have not yet been authorized for them, the vacatur of the federal rules will not change the authorization status of the state programs. The authorization status that was established prior to the adoption of the state counterpart rules remains in effect. The vacaturs and subsequent reinstatement of various provisions of the prior federal rules will result in state provisions that are broader in scope than the federal program as it pertains to the specific vacated provisions.

    4. States That Adopted Similar Rules and Have Been Authorized for Them

    For states that have previously been authorized for rules similar to the verified recycler exclusion and the 2015 definition of legitimate recycling, and have been authorized for them, the effect of the vacaturs is that those previously-authorized state provisions will be considered broader in scope than the federally program as it pertains to the specific vacated provisions.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived review of this action. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs; Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not 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). This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

    A. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    To implement the court vacatur, EPA submitted an emergency ICR amendment to OMB with OMB control number 2050-0202 (EPA ICR Number 2310.05). You can find a copy of the ICR amendment in the docket for this rule. The ICR amendment reflects changes due to the vacatur, which are expected to affect a total of 105 facilities, resulting in a total net burden reduction of 2,122 hours and $26,132.21 per year. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    B. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Because this final action only implements the court vacatur, and the Agency has made a good cause finding that notice and comment is unnecessary, it is not subject to the Congressional Review Act.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Solid waste.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

    § 260.30 [Amended]
    2. Section 260.30 is amended by removing paragraph (f).
    § 260.31 [Amended]
    3. Section 260.31 is amended by removing paragraph (d). 4. Section 260.42 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 260.42 Notification requirement for hazardous secondary materials.

    (a) Facilities managing hazardous secondary materials under §§ 260.30, 261.4(a)(23), 261.4(a)(24), 261.4(a)(25), or 261.4(a)(27) must send a notification prior to operating under the regulatory provision and by March 1 of each even-numbered year thereafter to the Regional Administrator using EPA Form 8700-12 that includes the following information:

    (1) The name, address, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the facility;

    (2) The name and telephone number of a contact person;

    (3) The NAICS code of the facility;

    (4) The regulation under which the hazardous secondary materials will be managed;

    (5) For reclaimers and intermediate facilities managing hazardous secondary materials in accordance with § 261.4(a)(24) or (25), whether the reclaimer or intermediate facility has financial assurance (not applicable for persons managing hazardous secondary materials generated and reclaimed under the control of the generator);

    (6) When the facility began or expects to begin managing the hazardous secondary materials in accordance with the regulation;

    (7) A list of hazardous secondary materials that will be managed according to the regulation (reported as the EPA hazardous waste numbers that would apply if the hazardous secondary materials were managed as hazardous wastes);

    (8) For each hazardous secondary material, whether the hazardous secondary material, or any portion thereof, will be managed in a land-based unit;

    (9) The quantity of each hazardous secondary material to be managed annually; and

    (10) The certification (included in EPA Form 8700-12) signed and dated by an authorized representative of the facility.

    5. Section 260.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 260.43 Legitimate recycling of hazardous secondary materials.

    (a) Recycling of hazardous secondary materials for the purpose of the exclusions or exemptions from the hazardous waste regulations must be legitimate. Hazardous secondary material that is not legitimately recycled is discarded material and is a solid waste. In determining if their recycling is legitimate, persons must address all the requirements of this paragraph and must consider the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.

    (1) Legitimate recycling must involve a hazardous secondary material that provides a useful contribution to the recycling process or to a product or intermediate of the recycling process. The hazardous secondary material provides a useful contribution if it:

    (i) Contributes valuable ingredients to a product or intermediate; or

    (ii) Replaces a catalyst or carrier in the recycling process; or

    (iii) Is the source of a valuable constituent recovered in the recycling process; or

    (iv) Is recovered or regenerated by the recycling process; or

    (v) Is used as an effective substitute for a commercial product.

    (2) The recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate. The product or intermediate is valuable if it is:

    (i) Sold to a third party; or

    (ii) Used by the recycler or the generator as an effective substitute for a commercial product or as an ingredient or intermediate in an industrial process.

    (3) The generator and the recycler must manage the hazardous secondary material as a valuable commodity when it is under their control. Where there is an analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be managed, at a minimum, in a manner consistent with the management of the raw material or in an equally protective manner. Where there is no analogous raw material, the hazardous secondary material must be contained. Hazardous secondary materials that are released to the environment and are not recovered immediately are discarded.

    (b) The following factor must be considered in making a determination as to the overall legitimacy of a specific recycling activity.

    (1) The product of the recycling process does not:

    (i) Contain significant concentrations of any hazardous constituents found in appendix VIII of part 261 that are not found in analogous products; or

    (ii) Contain concentrations of hazardous constituents found in appendix VIII of part 261 at levels that are significantly elevated from those found in analogous products, or

    (iii) Exhibit a hazardous characteristic (as defined in part 261 subpart C) that analogous products do not exhibit.

    (2) In making a determination that a hazardous secondary material is legitimately recycled, persons must evaluate all factors and consider legitimacy as a whole. If, after careful evaluation of these considerations, the factor in this paragraph is not met, then this fact may be an indication that the material is not legitimately recycled. However, the factor in this paragraph does not have to be met for the recycling to be considered legitimate. In evaluating the extent to which this factor is met and in determining whether a process that does not meet this factor is still legitimate, persons can consider exposure from toxics in the product, the bioavailability of the toxics in the product and other relevant considerations.

    PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 6. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.

    Subpart A—General 7. Section 261.4 is amended as follows: a. Republish paragraph (a) introductory text; b. Revise paragraphs (a)(23) introductory text, (a)(23)(ii), and (a)(24); and c. Add paragraph (a)(25).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 261.4 Exclusions.

    (a) Materials which are not solid wastes. The following materials are not solid wastes for the purpose of this part:

    (23) Hazardous secondary material generated and legitimately reclaimed within the United States or its territories and under the control of the generator, provided that the material complies with paragraphs (a)(23)(i) and (ii) of this section:

    (ii)(A) The hazardous secondary material is contained as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter. A hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a solid waste unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of reclamation. Hazardous secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing or intermittent unpermitted releases is discarded and a solid waste.

    (B) The hazardous secondary material is not speculatively accumulated, as defined in § 261.1(c)(8).

    (C) Notice is provided as required by § 260.42 of this chapter.

    (D) The material is not otherwise subject to material-specific management conditions under paragraph (a) of this section when reclaimed, and it is not a spent lead-acid battery (see §§ 266.80 and 273.2 of this chapter).

    (E) Persons performing the recycling of hazardous secondary materials under this exclusion must maintain documentation of their legitimacy determination on-site. Documentation must be a written description of how the recycling meets all three factors in § 260.43(a) and how the factor in § 260.43(b) was considered. Documentation must be maintained for three years after the recycling operation has ceased.

    (F) The emergency preparedness and response requirements found in subpart M of this part are met.

    (24) Hazardous secondary material that is generated and then transferred to another person for the purpose of reclamation is not a solid waste, provided that:

    (i) The material is not speculatively accumulated, as defined in § 261.1(c)(8);

    (ii) The material is not handled by any person or facility other than the hazardous secondary material generator, the transporter, an intermediate facility or a reclaimer, and, while in transport, is not stored for more than 10 days at a transfer facility, as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter, and is packaged according to applicable Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179 while in transport;

    (iii) The material is not otherwise subject to material-specific management conditions under paragraph (a) of this section when reclaimed, and it is not a spent lead-acid battery (see §§ 266.80 and 273.2 of this chapter);

    (iv) The reclamation of the material is legitimate, as specified under § 260.43 of this chapter;

    (v) The hazardous secondary material generator satisfies all of the following conditions:

    (A) The material must be contained as defined in § 260.10. A hazardous secondary material released to the environment is discarded and a solid waste unless it is immediately recovered for the purpose of recycling. Hazardous secondary material managed in a unit with leaks or other continuing releases is discarded and a solid waste.

    (B) Prior to arranging for transport of hazardous secondary materials to a reclamation facility (or facilities) where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a RCRA part B permit or interim status standards, the hazardous secondary material generator must make reasonable efforts to ensure that each reclaimer intends to properly and legitimately reclaim the hazardous secondary material and not discard it, and that each reclaimer will manage the hazardous secondary material in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. If the hazardous secondary material will be passing through an intermediate facility where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a RCRA part B permit or interim status standards, the hazardous secondary material generator must make contractual arrangements with the intermediate facility to ensure that the hazardous secondary material is sent to the reclamation facility identified by the hazardous secondary material generator, and the hazardous secondary material generator must perform reasonable efforts to ensure that the intermediate facility will manage the hazardous secondary material in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Reasonable efforts must be repeated at a minimum of every three years for the hazardous secondary material generator to claim the exclusion and to send the hazardous secondary materials to each reclaimer and any intermediate facility. In making these reasonable efforts, the generator may use any credible evidence available, including information gathered by the hazardous secondary material generator, provided by the reclaimer or intermediate facility, and/or provided by a third party. The hazardous secondary material generator must affirmatively answer all of the following questions for each reclamation facility and any intermediate facility:

    (1) Does the available information indicate that the reclamation process is legitimate pursuant to § 260.43 of this chapter? In answering this question, the hazardous secondary material generator can rely on their existing knowledge of the physical and chemical properties of the hazardous secondary material, as well as information from other sources (e.g., the reclamation facility, audit reports, etc.) about the reclamation process.

    (2) Does the publicly available information indicate that the reclamation facility and any intermediate facility that is used by the hazardous secondary material generator notified the appropriate authorities of hazardous secondary materials reclamation activities pursuant to § 260.42 of this chapter and have they notified the appropriate authorities that the financial assurance condition is satisfied per paragraph (a)(24)(vi)(F) of this section? In answering these questions, the hazardous secondary material generator can rely on the available information documenting the reclamation facility's and any intermediate facility's compliance with the notification requirements per § 260.42 of this chapter, including the requirement in § 260.42(a)(5) to notify EPA whether the reclaimer or intermediate facility has financial assurance.

    (3) Does publicly available information indicate that the reclamation facility or any intermediate facility that is used by the hazardous secondary material generator has not had any formal enforcement actions taken against the facility in the previous three years for violations of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and has not been classified as a significant non-complier with RCRA Subtitle C? In answering this question, the hazardous secondary material generator can rely on the publicly available information from EPA or the state. If the reclamation facility or any intermediate facility that is used by the hazardous secondary material generator has had a formal enforcement action taken against the facility in the previous three years for violations of the RCRA hazardous waste regulations and has been classified as a significant non-complier with RCRA Subtitle C, does the hazardous secondary material generator have credible evidence that the facilities will manage the hazardous secondary materials properly? In answering this question, the hazardous secondary material generator can obtain additional information from EPA, the state, or the facility itself that the facility has addressed the violations, taken remedial steps to address the violations and prevent future violations, or that the violations are not relevant to the proper management of the hazardous secondary materials.

    (4) Does the available information indicate that the reclamation facility and any intermediate facility that is used by the hazardous secondary material generator have the equipment and trained personnel to safely recycle the hazardous secondary material? In answering this question, the generator may rely on a description by the reclamation facility or by an independent third party of the equipment and trained personnel to be used to recycle the generator's hazardous secondary material.

    (5) If residuals are generated from the reclamation of the excluded hazardous secondary materials, does the reclamation facility have the permits required (if any) to manage the residuals? If not, does the reclamation facility have a contract with an appropriately permitted facility to dispose of the residuals? If not, does the hazardous secondary material generator have credible evidence that the residuals will be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment? In answering these questions, the hazardous secondary material generator can rely on publicly available information from EPA or the state, or information provided by the facility itself.

    (C) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain for a minimum of three years documentation and certification that reasonable efforts were made for each reclamation facility and, if applicable, intermediate facility where the management of the hazardous secondary materials is not addressed under a RCRA part B permit or interim status standards prior to transferring hazardous secondary material. Documentation and certification must be made available upon request by a regulatory authority within 72 hours, or within a longer period of time as specified by the regulatory authority. The certification statement must:

    (1) Include the printed name and official title of an authorized representative of the hazardous secondary material generator company, the authorized representative's signature, and the date signed;

    (2) Incorporate the following language: “I hereby certify in good faith and to the best of my knowledge that, prior to arranging for transport of excluded hazardous secondary materials to [insert name(s) of reclamation facility and any intermediate facility], reasonable efforts were made in accordance with § 261.4(a)(24)(v)(B) to ensure that the hazardous secondary materials would be recycled legitimately, and otherwise managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, and that such efforts were based on current and accurate information.”

    (D) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain at the generating facility for no less than three (3) years records of all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary materials. For each shipment, these records must, at a minimum, contain the following information:

    (1) Name of the transporter and date of the shipment;

    (2) Name and address of each reclaimer and, if applicable, the name and address of each intermediate facility to which the hazardous secondary material was sent;

    (3) The type and quantity of hazardous secondary material in the shipment.

    (E) The hazardous secondary material generator must maintain at the generating facility for no less than three (3) years confirmations of receipt from each reclaimer and, if applicable, each intermediate facility for all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary materials. Confirmations of receipt must include the name and address of the reclaimer (or intermediate facility), the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary materials received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were received. This requirement may be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations of receipt);

    (F) The hazardous secondary material generator must comply with the emergency preparedness and response conditions in subpart M of this part.

    (vi) Reclaimers of hazardous secondary material excluded from regulation under this exclusion and intermediate facilities as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter satisfy all of the following conditions:

    (A) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must maintain at its facility for no less than three (3) years records of all shipments of hazardous secondary material that were received at the facility and, if applicable, for all shipments of hazardous secondary materials that were received and subsequently sent off-site from the facility for further reclamation. For each shipment, these records must at a minimum contain the following information:

    (1) Name of the transporter and date of the shipment;

    (2) Name and address of the hazardous secondary material generator and, if applicable, the name and address of the reclaimer or intermediate facility which the hazardous secondary materials were received from;

    (3) The type and quantity of hazardous secondary material in the shipment; and

    (4) For hazardous secondary materials that, after being received by the reclaimer or intermediate facility, were subsequently transferred off-site for further reclamation, the name and address of the (subsequent) reclaimer and, if applicable, the name and address of each intermediate facility to which the hazardous secondary material was sent.

    (B) The intermediate facility must send the hazardous secondary material to the reclaimer(s) designated by the hazardous secondary materials generator.

    (C) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must send to the hazardous secondary material generator confirmations of receipt for all off-site shipments of hazardous secondary materials. Confirmations of receipt must include the name and address of the reclaimer (or intermediate facility), the type and quantity of the hazardous secondary materials received and the date which the hazardous secondary materials were received. This requirement may be satisfied by routine business records (e.g., financial records, bills of lading, copies of DOT shipping papers, or electronic confirmations of receipt).

    (D) The reclaimer and intermediate facility must manage the hazardous secondary material in a manner that is at least as protective as that employed for analogous raw material and must be contained. An “analogous raw material” is a raw material for which a hazardous secondary material is a substitute and serves the same function and has similar physical and chemical properties as the hazardous secondary material.

    (E) Any residuals that are generated from reclamation processes will be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. If any residuals exhibit a hazardous characteristic according to subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, or if they themselves are specifically listed in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261, such residuals are hazardous wastes and must be managed in accordance with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.

    (F) The reclaimer and intermediate facility have financial assurance as required under subpart H of 40 CFR part 261,

    (vii) In addition, all persons claiming the exclusion under this paragraph (a)(24) of this section must provide notification as required under § 260.42 of this chapter.

    (25) Hazardous secondary material that is exported from the United States and reclaimed at a reclamation facility located in a foreign country is not a solid waste, provided that the hazardous secondary material generator complies with the applicable requirements of paragraph (a)(24)(i)-(v) of this section (excepting paragraph (a)(24)(v)(B)(2) of this section for foreign reclaimers and foreign intermediate facilities), and that the hazardous secondary material generator also complies with the following requirements:

    (i) Notify EPA of an intended export before the hazardous secondary material is scheduled to leave the United States. A complete notification must be submitted at least sixty (60) days before the initial shipment is intended to be shipped off-site. This notification may cover export activities extending over a twelve (12) month or lesser period. The notification must be in writing, signed by the hazardous secondary material generator, and include the following information:

    (A) Name, mailing address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the hazardous secondary material generator;

    (B) A description of the hazardous secondary material and the EPA hazardous waste number that would apply if the hazardous secondary material was managed as hazardous waste and the U.S. DOT proper shipping name, hazard class and ID number (UN/NA) for each hazardous secondary material as identified in 49 CFR parts 171 through 177;

    (C) The estimated frequency or rate at which the hazardous secondary material is to be exported and the period of time over which the hazardous secondary material is to be exported;

    (D) The estimated total quantity of hazardous secondary material;

    (E) All points of entry to and departure from each foreign country through which the hazardous secondary material will pass;

    (F) A description of the means by which each shipment of the hazardous secondary material will be transported (e.g., mode of transportation vehicle (air, highway, rail, water, etc.), type(s) of container (drums, boxes, tanks, etc.));

    (G) A description of the manner in which the hazardous secondary material will be reclaimed in the country of import;

    (H) The name and address of the reclaimer, any intermediate facility and any alternate reclaimer and intermediate facilities; and

    (I) The name of any countries of transit through which the hazardous secondary material will be sent and a description of the approximate length of time it will remain in such countries and the nature of its handling while there (for purposes of this section, the terms “EPA Acknowledgement of Consent”, “country of import” and “country of transit” are used as defined in 40 CFR 262.81 with the exception that the terms in this section refer to hazardous secondary materials, rather than hazardous waste):

    (ii) Notifications must be submitted electronically using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system.

    (iii) Except for changes to the telephone number in paragraph (a)(25)(i)(A) of this section and decreases in the quantity of hazardous secondary material indicated pursuant to paragraph (a)(25)(i)(D) of this section, when the conditions specified on the original notification change (including any exceedance of the estimate of the quantity of hazardous secondary material specified in the original notification), the hazardous secondary material generator must provide EPA with a written renotification of the change. The shipment cannot take place until consent of the country of import to the changes (except for changes to paragraph (a)(25)(i)(I) of this section and in the ports of entry to and departure from countries of transit pursuant to paragraphs (a)(25)(i)(E) of this section) has been obtained and the hazardous secondary material generator receives from EPA an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent reflecting the country of import's consent to the changes.

    (iv) Upon request by EPA, the hazardous secondary material generator shall furnish to EPA any additional information which a country of import requests in order to respond to a notification.

    (v) EPA will provide a complete notification to the country of import and any countries of transit. A notification is complete when EPA receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section. Where a claim of confidentiality is asserted with respect to any notification information required by paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section, EPA may find the notification not complete until any such claim is resolved in accordance with 40 CFR 260.2.

    (vi) The export of hazardous secondary material under this paragraph (a)(25) is prohibited unless the country of import consents to the intended export. When the country of import consents in writing to the receipt of the hazardous secondary material, EPA will send an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to the hazardous secondary material generator. Where the country of import objects to receipt of the hazardous secondary material or withdraws a prior consent, EPA will notify the hazardous secondary material generator in writing. EPA will also notify the hazardous secondary material generator of any responses from countries of transit.

    (vii) For exports to OECD Member countries, the receiving country may respond to the notification using tacit consent. If no objection has been lodged by any country of import or countries of transit to a notification provided pursuant to paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section within thirty (30) days after the date of issuance of the acknowledgement of receipt of notification by the competent authority of the country of import, the transboundary movement may commence. In such cases, EPA will send an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to inform the hazardous secondary material generator that the country of import and any relevant countries of transit have not objected to the shipment, and are thus presumed to have consented tacitly. Tacit consent expires one (1) calendar year after the close of the thirty (30) day period; renotification and renewal of all consents is required for exports after that date.

    (viii) A copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent must accompany the shipment. The shipment must conform to the terms of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent.

    (ix) If a shipment cannot be delivered for any reason to the reclaimer, intermediate facility or the alternate reclaimer or alternate intermediate facility, the hazardous secondary material generator must re-notify EPA of a change in the conditions of the original notification to allow shipment to a new reclaimer in accordance with paragraph (iii) of this section and obtain another EPA Acknowledgment of Consent.

    (x) Hazardous secondary material generators must keep a copy of each notification of intent to export and each EPA Acknowledgment of Consent for a period of three years following receipt of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent. They may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by retaining electronically submitted notifications or electronically generated Acknowledgements in their account on EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, provided that such copies are readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector. No hazardous secondary material generator may be held liable for the inability to produce a notification or Acknowledgement for inspection under this section if they can demonstrate that the inability to produce such copies are due exclusively to technical difficulty with EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system for which the hazardous secondary material generator bears no responsibility.

    (xi) Hazardous secondary material generators must file with the Administrator no later than March 1 of each year, a report summarizing the types, quantities, frequency and ultimate destination of all hazardous secondary materials exported during the previous calendar year. Annual reports must be submitted electronically using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system. Such reports must include the following information:

    (A) Name, mailing and site address, and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the hazardous secondary material generator;

    (B) The calendar year covered by the report;

    (C) The name and site address of each reclaimer and intermediate facility;

    (D) By reclaimer and intermediate facility, for each hazardous secondary material exported, a description of the hazardous secondary material and the EPA hazardous waste number that would apply if the hazardous secondary material was managed as hazardous waste, the DOT hazard class, the name and U.S. EPA ID number (where applicable) for each transporter used, the total amount of hazardous secondary material shipped and the number of shipments pursuant to each notification;

    (E) A certification signed by the hazardous secondary material generator which states: “I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”

    (xii) All persons claiming an exclusion under this paragraph (a)(25) must provide notification as required by § 260.42 of this chapter.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11578 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. CDC-2016-0068] RIN 0920-AA63 Control of Communicable Diseases; Technical Correction AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces a technical correction to the final rule published on July 10, 2017. The July 10, 2017, technical correction provided amendments to a final rule published on January 19, 2017, but contained an error. HHS/CDC is therefore submitting a new correction to correct that error.

    DATES:

    This correcting amendment is effective May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Buigut, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-E03, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone: (404) 498-1600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 19, 2017, HHS/CDC published a final rule (82 FR 6890) that included several non-substantive errors. On July 10, 2017, HHS/CDC published a technical correction (82 FR 31728) to correct errors made in the final rule. However, one new error was inadvertently created by including an instruction to change a word in the title of 42 CFR 71.5 dealing with vessels from “voyage” to “flight.” HHS/CDC therefore, is publishing this correction notice amendment to fix the publication error that was made in the previous technical correction notice.

    Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that it is unnecessary to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because the technical correction being made, as discussed below, addresses only a minor publication error that does not substantially change agency actions taken in the final rule.

    Control of Communicable Diseases; Correction published at 82 FR 31728 (July 10, 2017), included an error in the title of 42 CFR 71.5 dealing with vessels by changing “voyage” to “flight.” We are now correcting the heading by amending it to read “§ 71.5 Requirements relating to the transmission of vessel passenger, crew, and voyage information for public health purposes.” This correction is minor, non-substantive, and therefore treated as if it had been included in the final rule published in the January 19, 2017, Federal Register.

    Summary of Technical Corrections to 42 CFR 71 Foreign Quarantine

    The final rule contains a section relating to the transmission of passenger and crew information for vessels, § 71.5. The technical correction published on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31728), mistakenly changed the title of this section to, “Requirements relating to the transmission of vessel passenger, crew and flight information for public health purposes.” We are now correcting the heading for § 71.5 by changing “flight” to “voyage” because this section describes information pertaining to vessel voyages not aircraft flights.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR 71

    Apprehension, CDC, Communicable diseases, Conditional release, Director, Ill person, Isolation, Non-invasive, Public health emergency, Public health prevention measures, Quarantine, Quarantinable Communicable Diseases.

    PART 71—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 215 and 311 of Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); secs. 361-369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 264-272).

    2. In § 71.5, revise the section heading to read as follows:
    § 71.5 Requirements relating to the transmission of vessel passenger, crew, and voyage information for public health purposes.
    Dated: May 23, 2018. Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11539 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 650 [Docket No. FTA-2016-0008] RIN 2132-AB27 Private Investment Project Procedures AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is issuing a final rule describing new, experimental procedures to encourage increased project management flexibility, more innovation in project funding, improved efficiency, timely project implementation, and new project revenue streams for public transportation capital projects. A primary goal of this final rule is to address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. FTA anticipates using the lessons learned from these experimental procedures to develop more effective approaches to including private participation and investment in project planning, project development, finance, design, construction, maintenance, and operations.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this final rule is June 29, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For program matters, Tom Yedinak, Private Sector Liaison, Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-5137 or [email protected] For legal matters, Bonnie Graves, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-4011 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of Regulatory Action B. Statutory Authority C. Summary of Major Provisions D. Costs and Benefits II. Rulemaking Background III. Summary of NPRM Comments and FTA's Responses A. General Comments B. Section-by-Section Comments IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    This final rule establishes procedures by which FTA recipients contemplating public transportation capital projects may seek a waiver or modification of a mandatory FTA regulation, policy, procedure, or guidance document in order to address impediments to the use of public-private partnerships (P3s) and private investment in public transportation capital projects. The Private Investment Project Procedures (PIPP) are intended to encourage project sponsors to seek modifications of Federal requirements such that the modification will accelerate the project development process, attract private investment and lead to increased project management flexibility, more innovation, improved efficiency, and/or new revenue streams.

    B. Statutory Authority

    Section 20013(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141 (July 6, 2012), requires FTA to identify any provisions of 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, and any regulations or practices thereunder, that impede greater use of P3s and private investment. The law requires FTA to develop and implement, on a project basis, procedures and approaches that address such impediments in a manner similar to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Special Experimental Project Number 15 process (SEP-15), and protect the public interest and any public investment in public transportation capital projects that involve P3s or private investment. Section 20013(b)(5) of MAP-21 requires FTA to issue a rule to carry out the procedures and approaches developed under Section 20013(b)(1).

    In accordance with Section 20013(b)(6) of MAP-21, the PIPP may not be used to waive any requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 (including 49 U.S.C. 5333); or any other provision of Federal statute. Thus, the PIPP will allow for innovations in project delivery while maintaining FTA's stewardship responsibilities. FTA expects the lessons learned from projects approved under the PIPP to aid FTA in developing more effective approaches to project planning, project development, finance, design, construction, maintenance, and operations.

    C. Summary of Major Provisions

    In the notice of proposed rulemaking (82 FR 35500, Jul. 31, 2017), FTA proposed to add a new part 650, “Private Investment Project Procedures,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This final rule adds a new part 650 to title 49 of the CFR. In response to public comments, FTA has made several nonsubstantive, clarifying edits. In addition, FTA has made the following substantive changes:

    1. Amended the definition of “Eligible Project” to require a project be included in the statewide long-range transportation plan or the metropolitan transportation plan, as those terms are defined in 23 CFR part 450;

    2. Amended section 650.11 to permit one application per phase of a project, and to clarify that multiple waivers or modifications may be sought in one application;

    3. Amended section 650.21 to require reporting to FTA one year after construction is complete, and for projects that include private investment in operations and maintenance, a report is required two years after the project has entered into revenue operations; and

    4. Amended section 650.31 to permit applicants to identify proposed, as well as committed funding for the project, and to provide that FTA will post on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted.

    D. Costs and Benefits

    This final rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action, as FTA believes it will reduce the cost of complying with FTA requirements. FTA requested comment on the potential benefits or cost savings associated with this rule but did not receive any relevant information. Therefore, FTA is unable to quantify the benefits or cost savings due to the lack of information about (1) the types of waivers that will be requested, (2) the number of waivers that will be requested, and (3) the difference in cost between complying with FTA's existing requirements and complying with the requirements of a waiver and this final rule.

    II. Rulemaking Background

    Over the past decade, Federal transportation legislation has evolved to encourage increased use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. FTA's notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule goes into some detail on this history. See 82 FR 35500, Jul. 31, 2017, https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-07-31/pdf/2017-15985.pdf.

    More recently, Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP-21 directs FTA to identify impediments in chapter 53 of title 49 of the United States Code, and any regulations or practices thereunder, to the use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects, and to develop and implement procedures on a project basis that address such impediments in a manner similar to FHWA's SEP-15 process.

    In 2004 FHWA initiated SEP-15, pursuant to authority granted to the Secretary by 23 U.S.C. 502(b), to create a procedure to waive certain requirements of title 23 of the United States Code and implementing regulations on a case-by-case basis in order to encourage tests and experimentation in the entire project development process, specifically aimed at attracting private investment, leading to increased project management flexibility, more innovation, improved efficiency, timely project implementation, and new revenue streams. 69 FR 59983 (Oct. 6, 2004). SEP-15 permits FHWA to experiment in four major areas of project delivery—contracting, right-of-way acquisition, project finance, and compliance with NEPA and other environmental requirements. SEP-15 enables FHWA to actively explore changes in the way it approaches the oversight and delivery of highway projects to further the Administration's goals of reducing congestion and preserving transportation infrastructure. A key feature of SEP-15 is that it allows FHWA to identify current FHWA laws, regulations, and practices that inhibit greater use of P3s and private investment in transportation improvements and allows FHWA to develop procedures and approaches that address these impediments.

    FTA conducted an online dialogue from October 2014 to January 2015 with public transportation recipients and stakeholders to help inform this rulemaking process. In general, commenters identified the following impediments to private investment in public transportation capital projects: The timing of Federal grant awards can discourage lender interest because it is perceived to be incompatible with the timing of private financing schedules, public agency procurement schedules and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) financing programs, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) and Private Activity Bonds (PAB); the level of Federal oversight could be more flexible and dependent upon the experience of the project sponsor, terms of agreements, and the existence of concurrent, independent oversight, such as state or regulatory agencies, and type of financing; FTA could rely more heavily upon approvals of third parties with jurisdiction over a project, rather than replicate certain reviews, and commenters questioned whether any necessary FTA reviews could be expedited by having them performed by an independent third party selected by FTA, but paid for by the project sponsor.

    Under this final rule, recipients funding a public transportation capital project subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 with FTA, RRIF, TIFIA or other Federal financial assistance could request a modification or waiver, in whole or in part, of one or more specific FTA regulations, practices, procedures or guidance documents (including circular provisions) that is an impediment to the use of P3s or private investment in that project. For example, an applicant could propose that FTA rely upon approvals of third parties with jurisdiction over an eligible project, rather than replicate certain FTA oversight reviews.

    III. Summary of NPRM Comments and FTA Responses

    FTA received comments from 21 entities, including State DOTs, transit agencies, industry associations, consultants, and individuals, as well as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), a union, a private operator, a P3 authority, and a development corporation. Most commenters expressed support for the rulemaking, with one commenter suggesting that private investment is not appropriate for public transit projects and should not be encouraged by FTA.

    Some comments were outside the scope of the rulemaking. For example, two commenters suggested they would support initiatives related to waivers of FHWA and USDOT rules; this rulemaking pertains only to FTA. Some commenters suggested lists of requirements or processes that could be waived or modified; this rulemaking does not include such lists, as waiver or modification of administrative requirements will be done on a project (case-by-case) basis. One commenter asked if FTA would consider increasing the Federal share of a project's cost where a P3 is involved, and asked if a project would get a higher rating in the U.S. DOT Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) application process if a P3 is involved. The Federal share is statutory and something FTA cannot waive or modify; rating for the TIGER program is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Similarly, commenters' proposed changes to FTA's Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program and requests for preferential treatment for FTA discretionary grant awards that include public and private sector benefits are outside the scope of this rule. Finally, some commenters requested that any public transportation capital project that includes private investment should include a “value for money” or cost-benefit analysis. Project sponsors contemplating private participation in project delivery should ensure that the public interest is protected and the return on investment makes sense, but such an analysis is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

    A. General Comments

    Comments. Several commenters addressed the scope of the rule, with one commenter acknowledging the limitations of the rulemaking, in that Section 20013(b) of MAP-21 does not permit FTA to waive or modify statutory requirements, and asserting that often statutory requirements can be the most significant barriers to P3 involvement. Another commenter suggested the scope of the rule appeared narrower than SEP-15, and suggested the rule should be broadened to cover any innovative idea, such as improvements to project delivery and incentivizing local investment. One commenter noted that the rule applies only prospectively, and not to existing projects, suggesting that existing projects may benefit from P3s and may require relief from FTA requirements related to grant administration or lease of federally-assisted assets. Another commenter suggested that a P3 should include those situations in which a public entity enters into a contract with a private entity to operate, manage, or maintain all or part of a transit system that receives federal funding.

    Response. A key difference between FHWA's SEP-15 and the authority provided to FTA by Section 20013(b) of MAP-21 is that SEP-15 permits waiver of statutory requirements in title 23 of the United States Code, and Section 20013(b) does not permit FTA to waive any provision of federal statute. Thus, FTA is limited to waiver or modification of FTA administrative requirements, including regulations, policies, guidance, etc., and not statutory provisions. However, FTA believes that waiver or modification of administrative requirements may result in increased flexibility, improved project efficiency, and timely implementation of project delivery. While there are limitations, FTA does not believe the rule is otherwise significantly narrower than SEP-15; recipients or project sponsors may propose any innovative idea that they believe will remove an impediment to private investment or participation in public transportation capital projects. The rule does apply prospectively and not to existing capital projects. Further, this rule does not apply to contracts between public entities and private entities solely for the operation, management, or maintenance of a transit system. There is no evidence that there are challenges involving the private sector in state of good repair, general maintenance, or other ongoing capital projects, including the capital cost of contracting for operations. Indeed, many transit agencies contract with private entities for ongoing capital needs, maintenance, and operations. The purpose of this rulemaking is to encourage private entity participation in designing and building new public transportation capital projects, to include, as a component of the whole project, long-term investments in operations and maintenance where desired and appropriate.

    Comments. One commenter suggested FTA provide resources to assist recipients in identifying regulations, procedures, policies, etc., that may be waived or modified, to include a list of such provisions, with another commenter suggesting the rule does not appear to provide certainty in the decision-making process. Another commenter suggested that FTA should delay implementation of PIPP until after FTA has published the transparency guidance required by Section 20013(b)(2) of MAP-21.

    Response. FTA intends to develop frequently asked questions (FAQs) and other guidance related to the final rule prior to or closely following publication of the final rule, but does not intend to develop a list of provisions that might be waived or modified. It is up to the recipient/project sponsor to identify FTA administrative requirements that are standing in the way of private investment or participation in a particular project. Such impediments are likely to vary from project to project. FTA's Private Sector Liaison is available to provide technical assistance to recipients contemplating a request for a waiver or modification. FTA has not yet developed the guidance required by Section 20013(b)(2) of MAP-21, but does not believe the rulemaking should be delayed. FTA has developed a robust Private Sector Participation web page that includes numerous resources for recipients and private entities. See https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/funding-finance-resources/private-sector-participation/private-sector-participation-1.

    B. Section-by-Section Comments Section 650.5 Definitions

    One commenter suggested that projects should be eligible for waiver or modification of administrative requirements only if the project is part of a region's approved long-range transportation plan. This will help to assure the project is a priority for the region. FTA agrees with this comment and has amended the definition of “eligible project” to require the project be included in the statewide long-range transportation plan or the metropolitan transportation plan, as those terms are defined in 23 CFR part 450.

    Several commenters suggested various amendments to the proposed definition in the NPRM of Public-Private Partnership (P3). FTA proposed that a P3 be defined as, “a contractual agreement formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that is characterized by private sector investment and risk-sharing in the delivery, financing and operation of a project.” Commenters generally sought a broader definition that would go beyond the conventional project delivery and financing approaches to include other characteristics or elements, such as when federal funding benefits both the public and private sectors and their respective abilities to enhance economic development, mitigate congestion, enhance safety, and improve capacity. One commenter asserted the definition could be read to be limited to various project delivery contracting mechanisms such as design-build-finance, design-build-operate-maintain, or design-build-finance-operate-maintain. One commenter suggested FTA amend the definition to read “one or more private sector agencies.” Two commenters suggested FTA amend the definition to read “private sector investment and/or risk-sharing.” Two commenters suggested that an operations-only agreement should be eligible.

    FTA did not amend the definition of P3 proposed in the NPRM. The definition provides the framework necessary for the rule; it is not clear how the definition would prohibit characteristics of a P3 that include enhancing economic development, mitigating congestion, etc. The purpose of the rule is to provide a process by which recipients can request a waiver or modification of an administrative requirement that impedes greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects. Thus, design-build is a critical component of a P3 under this rule. As stated above in the “General Comments” section, there is no evidence that FTA requirements impede recipients' ability to contract with private entities for state of good repair projects, transit operations, or general maintenance. While the rulemaking is not limited to CIG projects, generally speaking, the rule will apply to new construction of public transportation corridors, systems, lines, etc. Further, while the definition provides for an agreement between “a public entity and a private sector entity,” the rule does not prohibit an agreement between a public entity and two or more private entities. Finally, private sector investment inherently involves sharing the risk of the project, so FTA declines to amend the definition of P3 to read “and/or.”

    Section 650.11 Private Investment Project Procedures

    Several commenters expressed concern about the proposed provision in the NPRM that only one application per project could be submitted. Commenters asserted that FTA should permit multiple applications through the development of the project, either by phase or when new opportunities are identified. One commenter suggested that if a project has more than one FTA recipient, each of the recipients should be permitted to request a waiver or modification.

    In response to comments, FTA has amended this section to provide that one application per phase of a project may be submitted, and that an application may include requests for waiver or modification of more than one FTA requirement. Allowing an application for each phase of a project means a recipient may submit one application during the project development phase, a second application during the engineering phase, and a third application during construction. FTA encourages recipients to include all of their requests for waiver or modification into one application, in order to streamline the waiver request process.

    Where more than one recipient is carrying out a project, the rule does not prohibit each recipient from requesting a waiver or modification of FTA administrative requirements. FTA does, however, expect recipients to work together in such situations to ensure recipients are not working at cross-purposes or submitting duplicate requests. Thus, section 650.31(b)(7) requires recipients to obtain the concurrence of other recipients involved in the same project prior to submitting an application for waiver or modification.

    One factor considered by the FTA Administrator in section 650.11(b) is “the amount of private sector participation or risk transfer proposed is sufficient to warrant modification or waiver of FTA requirements.” One commenter suggested this is a subjective factor and that FTA should provide clarity on the type or level of private participation that is deemed sufficient. In response, we note that this will be a case-by-case determination, likely dependent on project size, scope and cost, and thus not quantifiable in the rule.

    Section 650.13 Limitation

    The proposed text included language from Section 20013(b) of MAP-21, providing the Administrator may not waive or modify “any requirement under” 49 U.S.C. 5333, NEPA, or any other provision of Federal statute. One commenter suggested FTA amend the text to read, “statutory provision of” to better distinguish between statutory requirements that cannot be waived and regulatory requirements that can. FTA declines to make this change, as the language in the rule is the same language that is in the statute.

    Section 650.21 Lessons Learned Report

    FTA proposed in the NPRM that a project receiving a waiver or modification of an FTA requirement would be required to submit a report to FTA not later than one year after completion of the project. The report would evaluate the effectiveness of the waiver or modification on project delivery. One commenter suggested that in the case of a design-build-operate-maintain agreement, it could be decades before the project is “complete.” In response to this comment, we have amended the language to provide that a report is due one year after completion of construction, and for projects that include private entity involvement in operations or maintenance, a second report will be required two years after the project begins revenue operations. Other commenters suggested that reporting best practices and lessons learned could be reported as they are learned over the life of the project; FTA believes the reporting requirements of one year after construction and two years into revenue operations is the appropriate balance between getting the information as it is available and not imposing unduly burdensome reporting requirements.

    Several commenters suggested FTA make the waiver process as transparent as possible, with determinations on waivers, supporting materials, etc. available online. In response, FTA has added a new provision, section 650.31(e) stating FTA will publish on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted, including the waiver application and any supporting documentation. FTA will redact proprietary information prior to publication.

    Section 650.31 Application Process

    This section proposed a number of requirements that an application for waiver or modification must meet in order to be considered. Two commenters suggested that the requirement under 650.31(b)(7), that other recipients concur with the application submission where more than one recipient is involved with a project, be deleted. FTA declines to delete this requirement; where two or more recipients are involved in the same project, FTA expects them to work together to submit the application, or at least be aware that one recipient is submitting an application. This will help speed up the process in getting a decision. Several commenters suggested that FTA should accept applications with information available to the recipient at the time the application is submitted; FTA expects complete applications, and will inform any applicant that submits an incomplete application that FTA will not consider an application until it is complete. Several commenters suggested recipients be permitted to resubmit an application with additional information to address a denial or partial approval. FTA declines to accept this suggestion, but will make its Private Sector Liaison available to recipients seeking a waiver or modification for technical assistance purposes, which should help to ensure applications, once submitted, are complete and ready for consideration by the FTA Administrator. One commenter suggested recipients not be required to include duplicative information previously submitted in an earlier application (as in an earlier phase of the project). FTA believes reference to information in an earlier application should be sufficient; we have not amended the regulatory text.

    One commenter suggested including additional bases for waivers, such as hardship, unforeseen circumstances, a need for additional time for compliance, etc. FTA declines to include any of these as bases for waivers. The purpose of the rule is to remove impediments to private sector participation in public transportation capital projects. Thus, the additional bases proposed are not applicable here.

    One of the requirements in the proposed rule was that recipients provide, “a financial plan identifying sources and uses of funds committed to the project.” Several commenters suggested that funding sources might not be committed at the time of a waiver or modification application, and that in fact such sources might not be available unless FTA granted a waiver or modification. Two commenters suggested FTA amend the provision to state funds should be “proposed or committed.” FTA has accepted this suggestion and amended the regulatory text accordingly.

    FTA did not propose any timeframes for submission or review of applications. Applications may be submitted at any time when a recipient or project sponsor has the information necessary to submit a complete application. Several commenters suggested timeframes for FTA's response to an application, generally varying from 30 to 60 days. Given that the goal of the application is to remove impediments to private sector investment in capital projects, FTA recognizes that a prompt response to an application is important. FHWA generally provides a response to an applicant for SEP-15 within 60 days, depending on the complexity of the request. FTA believes this is a reasonable timeframe and will strive to respond to complete applications within 60 days. If an application is incomplete, FTA will not wait 60 days to respond, but will notify the applicant as soon as FTA determines the application is not complete. While FTA will strive to respond to applications in a timely manner, we decline to include specific timeframes in the regulatory text.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and 13563; USDOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits—including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Also, Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The final rule will encourage tests and experimentation in the project development process and is specifically aimed at attracting public-private partnerships and private investment. Public-private partnerships of capital projects are rare in the U.S. transit industry, although they are common in other countries. The final rule provides an avenue to address existing impediments to P3 projects with the aim of increasing their use, but it is unlikely, on its own, to significantly increase the level of P3 activity in the U.S. transit industry.

    FTA has determined this rulemaking is a non-significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is non-significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. FTA has examined the potential economic impacts of this rulemaking and has determined that this rulemaking is not economically significant because it will not result in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Today's rule will not adversely affect the economy, interfere with actions taken or planned by other agencies, or generally alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

    Executive Order 13771

    This final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action because FTA believes it will reduce the cost of complying with FTA requirements. However, FTA is unable to quantify the cost savings due to the lack of information about (1) the types of waivers that will be requested, (2) the number of waivers that will be requested, and (3) the difference in cost between complying with FTA's existing requirements and complying with the requirements of a waiver and this final rule.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FTA has evaluated the likely effects of the final rule on small entities, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48).

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). FTA has determined that the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also determined that this rule does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Moreover, consistent with Executive Order 13132, FTA has examined the direct compliance costs of the final rule on State and local governments and has determined that the collection and analysis of the data are eligible for Federal funding under FTA's grant programs.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FHWA has received an average of less than one application per year for its SEP-15 program since its inception. Therefore, FTA believes that this rule will not generate collection of information requirements that impact ten or more applicants. FTA sought comment on whether FTA should anticipate ten or more applications to the PIPP on an annual basis, but did not receive any comments on this issue.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental effects of their actions in the form of a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. This final rule is categorically excluded under FTA's environmental impact procedure at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), pertaining to planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. FTA has determined that no unusual circumstances exist in this instance, and that a categorical exclusion is appropriate for this rulemaking.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1998), Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, and DOT Order 5610.2(a) (77 FR 27534) require DOT agencies to achieve environmental justice (EJ) as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies and activities on minority and/or low-income populations. The DOT Order requires DOT agencies to address compliance with the Executive Order and the DOT Order in all rulemaking activities. In addition, on July 17, 2014, FTA issued a circular to update its EJ Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Recipients (www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_14740.html), which addresses administration of the Executive Order and DOT Order.

    FTA has evaluated this rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, and the FTA Circular and has determined that this rulemaking will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low income populations.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FTA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 (April 21, 1997), Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this rule will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000), and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FTA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FTA has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under the Executive Order, given that the action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not requirement.

    Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of FTA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or any other entity. Interested persons may review U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477-8.

    Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is issued under the authority of Section 20013(b)(1) of MAP-21, which requires the Secretary to issue rules to carry out procedures and approaches for alleviating impediments to P3s or private investment in public transportation.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    A Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN set forth in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 650

    Grant programs—transportation, Mass transportation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of Section 20013(b)(1) of The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141) and the delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, FTA hereby amends Chapter VI of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by adding Part 650 to read as follows: PART 650—PRIVATE INVESTMENT PROJECT PROCEDURES Sec. Subpart A—General Provisions 650.1 Purpose. 650.3 Applicability. 650.5 Definitions. Subpart B—Private Investment Project Procedures 650.11 Private investment project procedures. 650.13 Limitation. Subpart C—Reporting 650.21 Lessons learned report. Subpart D—Applications 650.31 Application process. Authority:

    Sec. 20013(b)(5), Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat 405; 49 CFR 1.91.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 650.1 Purpose.

    This part establishes private investment project procedures that seek to identify and address Federal Transit Administration requirements that are impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects, while protecting the public interest and any public investment in such projects.

    § 650.3 Applicability.

    This part applies to any recipient subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 that funds a public transportation capital project with Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) (23 U.S.C. 181-189, 601-609), the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program (45 U.S.C. 821-823), or with any other Federal financial assistance.

    § 650.5 Definitions.

    All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 are applicable to this part. The following definitions also apply to this part:

    Administrator means the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.

    Application means the formal documentation of an applicant's request to modify FTA requirements for an eligible project.

    Eligible project means any surface transportation capital project that is subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, included in the statewide long-range transportation plan or the metropolitan transportation plan, as those terms are defined in 23 CFR part 450, and that will be implemented as a public-private partnership, a joint development, or with other private sector investment.

    FTA means the Federal Transit Administration.

    FTA requirements means, for purposes of this part, existing FTA regulations and mandatory provisions of practices, procedures or guidance documents, including circulars.

    Joint development has the meaning ascribed to it in FTA Circular 7050.1 “Federal Transit Administration Guidance on Joint Development” and, for purposes of this part, includes private sector contributions, whether in the form of cash investment, capital construction contributed at the private sector's cost or other contribution determined by the Administrator to qualify.

    Other private sector investment means a financial or capital contribution to an eligible project from a private sector investor that is not provided through a public-private partnership or joint development.

    Private investment project procedures means the procedures by which applicants may propose, and the Administrator may agree, subject to the requirements of this part, to modify or waive existing FTA requirements for an eligible project.

    Private sector investor means the private sector entity that proposes to contribute funding to an eligible project.

    Public-private partnership (P3) means a contractual agreement formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that is characterized by private sector investment and risk-sharing in the delivery, financing and operation of a project.

    Recipient means an entity that proposes to receive Federal financial assistance for an eligible project under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, RRIF, TIFIA or other Federal financial assistance program.

    Subpart B—Private Investment Project Procedures
    § 650.11 Private investment project procedures.

    (a) A recipient may, subject to the requirements of this part, submit applications to modify or waive existing FTA requirements for an eligible project. For projects with multiple recipients, recipients may, but are not required to, submit an application for a project jointly; however, only one application per phase of a project may be submitted. Applications may contain requests for modification or waiver of more than one FTA requirement. All applications shall comply with the requirements of § 650.31.

    (b) Subject to § 650.13, the Administrator may modify or waive FTA requirements if the Administrator determines the recipient has demonstrated that—

    (1) The FTA requirement proposed for modification discourages the use of a public-private partnership, a joint development, or other private sector investment in a federally assisted public transportation capital project,

    (2) The proposed modification or waiver of the FTA requirements is likely to have the effect of encouraging a public-private partnership, a joint development, or other private sector investment in a Federally-assisted public transportation capital project,

    (3) The amount of private sector participation or risk transfer proposed is sufficient to warrant modification or waiver of FTA requirements, and

    (4) Modification or waiver of the FTA requirements can be accomplished while protecting the public interest and any public investment in the proposed federally assisted public transportation capital project.

    § 650.13 Limitation.

    (a) Nothing in this part may be construed to allow the Administrator to modify or waive any requirement under—

    (1) 49 U.S.C. 5333;

    (2) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.); or

    (3) Any other provision of Federal statute.

    (b) The Administrator's approval of an application under this part does not commit Federal-aid funding for the project.

    Subpart C—Reporting
    § 650.21 Lessons learned report.

    For a project for which the Administrator has modified or waived any FTA requirement pursuant to this part, not later than one year after completion of construction, and not later than two years after a project that includes private entity involvement in operations or maintenance activities has entered revenue operations, the recipient shall submit to FTA a report that evaluates the effects of the modification or waiver of Federal requirements on the delivery of the project. The report shall describe the modification or waiver applied to the project; evaluate the success or failure of the modification or waiver; evaluate the extent to which the modification or waiver addressed impediments to greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects; and may include any recommended statutory, regulatory or other changes with an explanation of how the changes would encourage greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in public transportation capital projects.

    Subpart D—Applications
    § 650.31 Application process.

    (a) Applications must be submitted to the FTA Private Sector Liaison at FTA Headquarters and provide a copy to the FTA Regional Administrator for the region in which the project is located. Addresses for FTA Headquarters and Regions are available at www.transit.dot.gov.

    (b) To be considered, an application submitted under this part must—

    (1) Describe the proposed project with respect to anticipated scope, cost, schedule, and anticipated source and amount of Federal financial assistance,

    (2) Identify whether the project is to be delivered as a public-private partnership, as a joint development or with other private sector investment,

    (3) Describe in detail the role of the private sector investor, if any, in delivering the project,

    (4) Identify the specific FTA requirement(s) that the recipient requests to have modified or waived and a proposal as to how the requirement(s) should be modified,

    (5) Provide a justification for the modification(s) or waiver(s), including an explanation of how the FTA requirement(s) presents an impediment to a public-private partnership, joint development, or other private sector investment,

    (6) Explain how the public interest and public investment in the project will be protected and how FTA can ensure the appropriate level of public oversight and control, as determined by the Administrator, is undertaken if the modification(s) or waiver(s) is allowed,

    (7) Provide other recipients' concurrence with submission of the application and waiver of the right to submit a separate application for the same project, where a project has more than one recipient at the time of application,

    (8) Provide a financial plan identifying sources and uses of funds proposed or committed to the project, and

    (9) Explain the expected benefits that the modification or waiver of FTA requirements would provide to address impediments to the greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in the project.

    (c) The Administrator shall notify the recipient in writing if the application fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. If the recipient does not supplement an incomplete application within thirty days of the date of the Administrator's notification, the application will be considered withdrawn without prejudice. The Administrator will not consider an application until the application is complete. The Administrator reserves the right to request additional information beyond the requirements in paragraph (b) upon determining that more information is needed to evaluate an application.

    (d) For applications that have been deemed complete, the Administrator will notify the recipient in writing as to whether the request for modification or waiver is approved or denied. Any approval may be given in whole or in part and may be conditioned or contingent upon the recipient satisfying the conditions identified in the approval.

    (e) FTA will publish on its public website information related to waivers the FTA Administrator has granted. This may include a copy of the waiver application and any supporting documents, with proprietary information redacted.

    Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.91.

    K. Jane Williams, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11385 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
    83 104 Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0053] Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating a data collection process through this request for information to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedure for metal halide lamp fixtures (MHLFs). To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data and identified several issues associated with the currently applicable test procedure on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern updates to industry standards and potential clarifications to the existing test procedure for MHLFs. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document, including topics not directly outlined in this RFI. DOE also welcomes comments on any additional topics that may inform DOE's decisions in a potential future test procedure rulemaking, such as methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the procedure's accuracy.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0053, by any of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: to [email protected] Include docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0053 in the subject line of the message.

    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section 0 of this document.

    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section 0 for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email: [email protected]

    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking History II. Request for Information A. Scope & Definitions B. Test Procedure 1. Updates to Industry Standards 2. Other Updates to the Federal Test Procedure C. Other Test Procedure Topics III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction

    MHLFs are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) DOE's test procedures for MHLFs are prescribed at 10 CFR 431.324. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for MHLFs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for MHLFs.

    A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These products include MHLFs, the subject of this RFI.3 (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19))

    1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

    3 Because of the inclusion of MHLFs in the list of covered products under 42 U.S.C. 6292, the rulemaking for MHLFs is bound by the requirements of Part A of Title III of EPCA. However, because MHLFs are generally considered commercial equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize confusion among interested parties, DOE adopted MHLF provisions into subpart S of 10 CFR part 431. 74 FR 12058, 12062 (March 23, 2009). Therefore, DOE will refer to MHLFs as “equipment” throughout this document. Where the notice refers to specific provisions in Part A of EPCA, the term “product” is used. The location of provisions within the CFR does not affect either their substance or applicable procedure.

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))

    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including MHLFs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on his own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed 270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines relevant to such procedure, including technological developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))

    B. Rulemaking History

    In addition to the test procedure review provision discussed above, EPCA requires DOE to establish test procedures for metal halide lamp ballasts based on the industry standard ANSI C82.6-2005 “Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps—Method of Measurement.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(18)) EPCA also requires that energy conservation standards and test procedures address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) On March 9, 2010, DOE published a final rule establishing active mode and standby mode test procedures for MHLFs based on measuring ballast efficiency in accordance with ANSI C82.6-2005 (2010 MHLF TP final rule). 75 FR 10950. DOE determined that per EPCA's definition of “off mode,” it is not possible for MHLFs to meet off mode criteria because there is no condition in which the components of an MHLF are connected to the main power source and are not already in a mode accounted for in either active or standby mode. 75 FR 10954-10955 (March 9, 2010).

    In a 2014 MHLF energy conservation standards final rule, DOE amended the test procedure to specify the input voltage at which a ballast is to be tested, and to require measuring and calculating ballast efficiency to three significant figures. 79 FR 7746, 7757-7759 (February 10, 2014). DOE's current test procedure for MHLFs for active mode and standby mode operation appears at 10 CFR 431.324 (“Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency and standby mode energy consumption of metal halide lamp ballasts”). Although MHLFs are the equipment at issue in this RFI, the test procedure requires measurement of metal halide ballast efficiency.

    II. Request for Information

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether an amended test procedure for MHLFs may be warranted. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment on any opportunities to streamline and simplify testing requirements for MHLFs.

    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this process that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to testing MHLFs consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

    A. Scope & Definitions

    As stated previously, although MHLFs are the covered product, the Federal test procedure requires measurement of metal halide ballast efficiency. EPCA and DOE define a MHLF as a light fixture for general lighting application designed to be operated with a metal halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6291(64) and 10 CFR 431.322). Metal halide ballast is defined as a ballast used to start and operate metal halide lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6291(62) and 10 CFR 431.322). DOE defines metal halide lamp as a high intensity discharge (HID) lamp in which the major portion of the light is produced by radiation of metal halides and their products of dissociation, possibly in combination with metallic vapors. (42 U.S.C. 6291(63) and 10 CFR 431.322).

    B. Test Procedure

    The current test procedure for MHLFs appears at 10 CFR 431.324. As noted previously, the test procedure for MHLFs incorporates by reference the 2005 version of ANSI C82.6 (ANSI C82.6-2005). ANSI C82.6 outlines procedures for measuring the performance of low-frequency ballasts, including metal halide ballasts, designed to operate HID lamps. Testing requires the use of a reference lamp, which is to be operated by the ballast under test conditions until the ballast reaches operational stability. Ballast efficiency is then calculated as the measured ballast output power divided by the ballast input power.

    Issue A.1 DOE requests information on the availability of reference lamps.

    1. Updates to Industry Standards

    In 2015, ANSI published a revised version of C82.6, “Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps—Methods of Measurement,” (ANSI C82.6-2015).4 DOE's initial review indicates that revisions mainly pertain to the addition of testing specifications particular to low-frequency electronic ballasts, including modifications to the alternative stabilization method, the addition of low-frequency square wave reference ballast characteristics, and further detail pertaining to ballast measurements.

    4 Approved February 20, 2015.

    Issue A.2 DOE requests comment on the potential impact of incorporating by reference the updated industry standard ANSI C82.6-2015 in the Federal test procedure. Specifically, DOE requests information on any potential differences in testing under the 2015 version, as compared to the 2005 version currently incorporated by reference.

    DOE also has found that the industry standard referenced in its definition of “ballast efficiency” has been updated. Per DOE regulations, “ballast efficiency,” or the efficiency of a lamp and ballast combination, is the measured operating lamp wattage (i.e., output power) divided by the measured operating input wattage (i.e., input power), expressed as a percentage. 10 CFR 431.322. The input and output power of the ballast must be measured while the ballast is operating a reference lamp. The 2004 version of ANSI C78.43 (ANSI C78.43-2004) is incorporated by reference in DOE's regulations to describe the requirements for various fixture components used when measuring ballast efficiency.5 See 10 CFR 431.323. Specifically, the definition of “ballast efficiency” states that the lamp and capacitor (when provided) must constitute a nominal system in accordance with ANSI C78.43-2004. However, ANSI C78.43-2004 does not define the term “nominal system.” ANSI C78.43-2004 does contain the physical and electrical requirements that single-ended metal halide lamps operated on 60 hertz (Hz) ballasts must meet to qualify as reference lamps. ANSI C78.43 was updated in 2013 (ANSI C78.43-2013) to incorporate datasheets for additional lamp types, which, if adopted, would provide characteristics to increase the number of potential reference lamps for testing.6

    5 American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for electric lamps—Single-Ended Metal Halide Lamps. Approved May 5, 2004.

    6 American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for electric lamps—Single-Ended Metal Halide Lamps. Approved April 3, 2013.

    Issue A.3 DOE requests comment on the potential impact of incorporating by reference the updated industry standard ANSI C78.43-2013 in the definition of “ballast efficiency.” DOE also requests comment on whether the term “nominal system” in the definition of “ballast efficiency” requires further clarification.

    2. Other Updates to the Federal Test Procedure a. MHLFs Containing Ballasts That May Operate More Than One Lamp Wattage

    Based on a recent survey of the market, DOE identified metal halide lamp fixtures that contain ballasts that may be able to operate lamps of more than one wattage (e.g., a ballast that can operate a 70W lamp or a 100W lamp). The definition of basic model for MHLFs states that basic models are rated to operate a given lamp type and wattage. 10 CFR 431.322. Thus, the current regulations indicate that such a model falls within multiple basic models. DOE is interested in information regarding how this equipment should be tested.

    Issue A.4 DOE requests information on the prevalence of metal halide ballasts capable of operating more than one lamp wattage and how this equipment should be tested.

    b. Dimming Ballasts

    DOE established an active mode test method in the 2010 MHLF TP final rule, which incorporated relevant sections of ANSI C82.6-2005 to measure ballast efficiency as required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(18)); 75 FR 10950 (March 9, 2010). DOE also clarified in the 2010 MHLF TP final rule that active mode applies to a functioning ballast operating with any amount of system light output (i.e., greater than zero percent), and noted that if a ballast is dimmed (i.e., operating the light source at more than zero percent, but less than 100 percent), the lamp and the ballast are both still in active mode. 75 FR 10953 (March 9, 2010). DOE notes that in the case of dimming ballasts, where input power can vary, a specification regarding how to test these ballasts is necessary. Thus, DOE is interested in information on whether it is common industry practice to test dimming metal halide ballasts at 100 percent light output.

    Issue A.5 DOE requests comment on whether it is common industry practice to test metal halide dimming ballasts at 100 percent light output.

    c. Standby Mode Test Method

    As required by EPCA, the 2010 MHLF TP final rule established a test method for measuring standby mode power. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)); 75 FR 10959-10961 (March 9, 2010). DOE developed the standby mode test method for metal halide ballasts to be consistent with the industry standard International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301: 2005, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power” (first edition, June 2005), but also referenced language and methodologies presented in ANSI C82.6-2005. 75 FR 10951 (March 9, 2010). As such, the 2010 MHLF TP final rule adopted test procedure provisions for measuring standby power that include the following steps: (1) A signal is sent to the ballast instructing it to reduce light output to zero percent; (2) the main input power to the ballast is measured; and (3) the power from the control signal path is measured in one of three ways, depending on how the signal from the control system is delivered to the ballast. 75 FR 10959-10960 (March 9, 2010). DOE is considering the implications of incorporating by reference the most recent version of industry standard IEC 62301 (IEC 62301: 2011) “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power” (second edition, January 2011) in an amended test method for measuring standby power.7 DOE notes that this change, if it were made, would be consistent with the requirements of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)), as well as the standby mode test method for other lighting products.

    7 Published January 27, 2011.

    Issue A.6 DOE requests comment on the potential impact of incorporating by reference IEC 62301: 2011 in its standby mode test method for MHLFs.

    Issue A.7 DOE requests comment on the availability of MHLFs that can operate in standby mode and, if they exist, their power consumption in standby mode.

    d. High-Frequency Electronic Ballasts

    As discussed in section II.B.1, the current test procedure incorporates by reference ANSI C82.6-2005 for testing both electronic and magnetic metal halide ballasts. However, neither ANSI C82.6-2005 nor the revised 2015 version provide a method specifically for testing high-frequency electronic (HFE) ballasts. A HFE metal halide ballast is defined by DOE as an electronic ballast that operates a lamp at an output frequency of 1000 Hz or greater. 10 CFR 431.322. In the 2013 MHLF energy conservation standards notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE considered adopting procedures for testing HFE ballasts based on the instrumentation used for testing electronic fluorescent lamp ballasts. 78 FR 51464, 51480-51481 (August 20, 2013). However, in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE declined to amend the test procedure to include a procedure for HFE ballasts due to the lack of industry specifications for reference lamps to be paired with the ballasts during testing and the lack of a complete test method specific to HFE ballasts. 79 FR 7758 (February 10, 2014).

    Subsequently, an ANSI standard for HFE metal halide ballasts titled ANSI C82.17-2017, “High Frequency (HF) Electronic Ballasts for Metal Halide Lamps,” (ANSI C82.17-2017) was recently published on August 11, 2017.8 ANSI C82.17-2017 provides specifications for and operating characteristics of HFE metal halide ballasts with sinusoidal lamp operating current frequencies above 40 kilohertz (kHz). ANSI C82.17-2017 also states in section 5.1 that “all measurements necessary to determine compliance with the ballast performance requirements of this standard shall be made in accordance with ANSI C82.6.” Thus, based on DOE's initial review of the newly published standard, DOE believes that ANSI C82.17-2017 could be used for ballast operating conditions for HFE ballasts and that ANSI C82.6-2015 could be used as the guide for measurement of HFE ballasts.

    8 Approved May 18, 2017.

    Issue A.8 DOE requests comment on the potential impact of incorporating by reference ANSI C82.17-2017 in the Federal test procedure. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether newly published ANSI C82.17-2017 provides a repeatable and reproducible method when paired with ANSI C82.6-2015 for the testing of all HFE metal halide ballasts as defined by DOE.

    Issue A.9 DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers and laboratories test HFE metal halide ballasts using the same instrumentation as electronic fluorescent lamp ballasts.

    C. Other Test Procedure Topics

    In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedure for MHLFs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would assist DOE in assuring that the test procedure accurately reflects the energy use of the products during a representative average use cycle, and information that would improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. DOE also requests information that would help DOE create a procedure that would limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or simplifying testing requirements. Comments regarding the repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome.

    DOE also requests feedback on any potential amendments to the existing test procedure that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. DOE also seeks comment on the degree to which the Federal test procedure should consider and be harmonized with the most recent relevant industry standards for MHLFs, and whether there are any changes to the Federal test procedure that would provide additional benefits to the public.

    DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification. One topic for consideration, for example, is the specification of input voltage and stabilization criteria for ballasts of high intensity discharge lamps beyond what is required by ANSI C82.6. Another topic for consideration is the clarification of testing direction pertaining to the types of metal halide lamps to pair with metal halide ballasts under test, or control devices to be used, during standby mode testing beyond the requirements of IEC 62301: 2011. DOE requests comment on whether the addition of these types of requirements are worth the additional burden on manufacturers.

    Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether the existing test procedure limits a manufacturer's ability to provide additional MHLF features to customers. DOE particularly seeks information on how the test procedure could be amended to reduce the cost of new or additional features, and make it more likely that such features are included in MHLFs.

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing, by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of an amended test procedure for MHLFs. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for MHLFs if DOE determines that an amended test procedure may be appropriate for this equipment.

    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

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

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11547 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Parts 124 and 126 RIN 3245-AG38; 3245-AG94 Tribal Consultation for Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs and Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notification of tribal consultation meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that it is holding tribal consultation meetings in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma concerning the regulations governing the 8(a) Business Development (BD) program and the HUBZone program. SBA seeks to reduce unnecessary or excessive regulatory burdens in those programs and to make them more attractive to procuring agencies and small businesses. Testimony presented at these tribal consultations will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration when the Agency deliberates on approaches to changes in the regulations pertaining to these programs.

    DATES:

    The Tribal Consultation meeting dates are as follows:

    1. Thursday, June 7, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (MDT), Albuquerque, New Mexico. The pre-registration deadline date for this Tribal Consultation meeting is May 31, 2018.

    2. Friday, June 8, 2018, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (CDT), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The pre-registration deadline date for this Tribal Consultation meeting is June 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    1. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Albuquerque will be held at the New Mexico Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th Street NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104. The Tribal Consultation meeting in Oklahoma City will be held at the Tinker Business & Industrial Park, 2601 Liberty Parkway, Oklahoma City, OK 73110. 2. Send pre-registration requests to attend and/or testify to Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; [email protected]; or Facsimile to (202) 481-2177. 3. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG38, for Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs and RIN 3245-AG94, for Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): to Kenneth Dodds, Director, Office of Procurement Policy and Liaison, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; or [email protected]; or Facsimile to (202) 481-2950, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, please submit the comments to Kenneth Dodds and highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe this information should be held confidential. SBA will make a final determination as to whether the comments will be published or not.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chequita Carter, Program Assistant for SBA's Office of Native American Affairs, at [email protected] or (202) 205-6680 or by facsimile to (202) 481-2177.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    SBA is contemplating making substantive changes to the regulations governing both the 8(a) BD (13 CFR part 124) and HUBZone (13 CFR part 126) programs, and requests comments and input on how best to reduce unnecessary or excessive regulatory burdens in those programs. Particularly, SBA is interested in comments related to two planned rulemakings: (1) Small Business HUBZone Program and Government Contracting Programs (RIN 3245-AG38); and (2) Consolidation of Mentor Protégé Programs and Other Government Contracting Amendments (RIN 3245-AG94). The first-mentioned planned rulemaking would constitute a comprehensive revision of part 126 of SBA's regulations to clarify current HUBZone program regulations, and implement various new procedures. The latter planned rulemaking contemplates consolidating the All Small Mentor Protégé Program and the 8(a) Mentor Protégé Program into one program and possibly eliminating SBA's role in approving joint venture agreements for 8(a) competitive contracts. In addition, it would revise SBA's process for approving management changes in entity-owned 8(a) firms. It is SBA's intent to implement changes that will make it easier for small business concerns to understand and comply with the programs' requirements. SBA is also seeking to make these programs more effective and improve the delivery of them to the small business community. SBA understands that some of its regulations have significantly adversely affected small business concerns owned and controlled by tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), including 8(a) change of ownership requirements and the process for changing an 8(a) firm's primary NAICS code, and seeks tribal participation to ease these burdens. Lastly, SBA notes that the HUBZone program is often not being fully utilized by procuring agencies, and seeks input on what changes could be made to make the HUBZone program more attractive to both procuring agencies and small businesses.

    In addition to the above, the Agency is seeking comments on two recommended regulatory amendments that were proposed during a May 9, 2018, tribal consultation meeting, in Anchorage, Alaska. One such amendment would require prospective 8(a) BD program applicants to complete a preparatory tutorial designed to help such concerns determine whether they are ready to fully benefit from the program's business development assistance. SBA requests input as to whether an 8(a) preparatory tutorial would be helpful to the small business community, and whether any such tutorial should be optional or mandatory for firms seeking to obtain 8(a) certification. The other amendment would allow mentors participating in SBA's mentor protégé programs to have more than three protégés at one time. SBA is concerned that allowing a large business mentor to have additional protégé firms at one time could permit them to unduly benefit from small business contracts, through joint ventures with their protégé firms, which they would otherwise not be eligible for. Nevertheless, SBA is seeking comments on whether lifting the current regulatory limit would benefit small businesses and further the programs' purpose.

    II. Tribal Consultation Meetings

    The purpose of these tribal consultation meetings is to conform to the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Tribal Consultations; to provide interested parties with an opportunity to discuss their views on the issues; and for SBA to obtain the views of SBA's stakeholders on approaches to the 8(a) BD program and HUBZone program regulations. SBA considers tribal consultation meetings a valuable component of its deliberations and believes that these tribal consultation meetings will allow for constructive dialogue with the Tribal community, Tribal Leaders, Tribal Elders, elected members of Alaska Native Villages or their appointed representatives, and principals of tribally-owned and ANC-owned firms participating in the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs.

    The format of these tribal consultation meetings will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony. SBA will analyze the testimony, both oral and written, along with any written comments received. SBA officials may ask questions of a presenter to clarify or further explain the testimony. The purpose of these tribal consultations is to assist SBA with gathering information to guide SBA's review process and to potentially develop new proposals. SBA requests that the comments focus on SBA's two planned rulemakings relating to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone programs, the two proposed regulatory revisions SBA received at the tribal consultation in Anchorage, Alaska, general issues as they pertain to the 8(a) BD and HUBZone regulations, input related to what changes could be made to make these programs more attractive to procuring agencies and small businesses, or the unique concerns of the Tribal communities. SBA requests that commenters do not raise issues pertaining to other SBA small business programs. Presenters are encouraged to provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony. Electronic or digitized copies are encouraged.

    Each tribal consultation meeting will be held for one day. The meeting in Albuquerque, NM will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:30 p.m. (MDT) and the meeting in Oklahoma City, OK will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 2:00 p.m. (CDT). SBA will adjourn early if all those scheduled have delivered their testimony.

    III. Registration

    SBA respectfully requests that any elected or appointed representative of the tribal communities or principal of a tribally-owned or ANC-owned 8(a) firm that is interested in attending please pre-register in advance and indicate whether you would like to testify at the hearing. Registration requests for the tribal consultation meetings in Albuquerque and Oklahoma City should be received by SBA by May 31, 2018 and June 1, 2018, respectively. Please contact Chequita Carter of SBA's Office of Native American Affairs in writing at [email protected] or by facsimile to (202) 481-2177. If you are interested in testifying please include the following information relating to the person testifying: Name, Organization affiliation, Address, Telephone number, Email address and Fax number. SBA will attempt to accommodate all interested parties that wish to present testimony. Based on the number of registrants it may be necessary to impose time limits to ensure that everyone who wishes to testify has the opportunity to do so. SBA will confirm in writing the registration of presenters and attendees.

    IV. Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the tribal consultation meeting, contact Chequita Carter at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 634 and E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249.

    Allen Gutierrez, Associate Administrator for the Office of Entrepreneurial Development.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11495 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0451; Product Identifier 2017-NM-172-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of rejected take-offs due to untimely inboard flap retraction. This proposed AD would require modification of the slat/flap control wiring and replacement of the slat/flap control box with an improved box. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 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 NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. 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.

    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-2018-0451; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0451; Product Identifier 2017-NM-172-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on 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 NPRM.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0219, dated November 14, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where, during the take-off run, a red CAS [crew alerting system] message “NO TAKE OFF” was displayed, and an aural warning was given. The flight crew elected to abort the take-off. The configuration of the affected aeroplane was SF1 and indicated airspeed (IAS) was at 100 kts. Investigations showed that the outboard slat extended microswitch, located at track #7, was not correctly adjusted. A design review revealed that this deficiency may affect only Falcon 900LX (commercial designation) without modification M5636, during take-off in SF1 configuration.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an uncommanded retraction of inboard slats and flaps during take-off, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, DA [Dassault Aviation] designed modification M6043 and published Service Bulletin (SB) F900EX-522 to provide instructions for embodiment of this modification in-service.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a wiring modification and replacement of the slat/flap control box with an improved box.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0451.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-522, also referred to as 522, dated March 8, 2017. This service information describes procedures for modifying the slat/flap control wiring and replacing the slat/flap control box. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification and replacement 22 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,870 $8,495 $10,365 $134,745

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

    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 proposed 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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    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 above, 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; 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.

    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): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0451; Product Identifier 2017-NM-172-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, certificated in any category, serial number 240 and serial numbers 242 through 273 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of rejected take-offs due to untimely inboard flap retraction. We are issuing this AD to prevent an uncommanded retraction of the inboard slats and flaps during take-off, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification and Replacement

    Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the slat/flap control wiring and replace the slat/flap control box having part number (P/N) 6-7061 with an improved control box, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F900EX-522, also referred to as 522, dated March 8, 2017.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no person may install any slat/flap control box having P/N 6-7061 on that airplane.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] 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.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0219, dated November 14, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0451.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3226.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. 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.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 15, 2018. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11422 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0489; Product Identifier 2018-NM-001-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that flightcrew oxygen masks did not deploy correctly during flight testing. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes are installed and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 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 NPRM, 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-2018-0489.

    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-2018-0489; 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 NPRM, 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:

    Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0489; Product Identifier 2018-NM-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that during flight tests, flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators did not deploy correctly. Users could not put the flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators on quickly because the harness tubing became caught in the mask or goggles. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a delay for the flightcrew to put on the masks, which may lead to hypoxia and the loss of useful consciousness, potentially resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacing certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes. 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 proposing 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.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes are installed and, if certain oxygen masks/regulators and stowage boxes are installed, accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed 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-2018-0489.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, refers to or specifies installing a new (or changed) part, for this proposed AD, we have determined a new or serviceable (or changed) part is acceptable.

    In addition, the effectivity of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, is limited. However, this proposed AD applies to all Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. Because the affected parts are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $1,530. Replacement Up to 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 68,256 Up to $68,766 Up to $1,237,788.
    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 proposed 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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    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 above, 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, 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.

    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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0489; Product Identifier 2018-NM-001-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that flightcrew oxygen masks did not function as designed during flight testing. We are issuing this AD to address flightcrew oxygen masks/regulators that do not deploy correctly, which could result in a delay for the flightcrew to put on the masks, which may lead to hypoxia and loss of useful consciousness, potentially resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect for oxygen mask/regulator part number (P/N) MLD20-626-1 and stowage box P/N MXP806-1. If any oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20-626-1 or stowage box P/N MXP806-1 is found, within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the part number inspection if the part numbers of the oxygen mask/regulator and stowage box can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-35-2133, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2017, refers to or specifies installing a new (or changed) part, for this AD, a new or serviceable (or changed) part is acceptable.

    (i) Parts Installation Limitation

    (1) For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or before the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20-626-1 on any airplane, except that prior to 72 months after the effective date of this AD, installation of P/N MLD20-626-1 is acceptable for unscheduled maintenance as a replacement only for another P/N MLD20-626-1 and only into a stowage box P/N MXP806-1. If an oxygen mask/regulator having a part number other than P/N MLD20-626-1 is installed, it may not be replaced with P/N MLD20-626-1. For the purposes of this AD, unscheduled maintenance is defined as maintenance that was not planned for or scheduled in advance, such as changing a defective or unserviceable oxygen mask at dispatch.

    (2) For airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or an original export certificate of airworthiness issued after the effective date of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20-626-1, on any airplane.

    (3) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install oxygen mask/regulator P/N MLD20-726-1, in combination with any stowage box part number that is not P/N MXP806-7, on any airplane.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (k)(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, Seattle 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.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(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. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. 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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3570; email: [email protected].

    (2) 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. 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.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 21, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11426 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0455; Product Identifier 2017-NM-121-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-24, which applies to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. AD 98-18-24 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking in the inner flange of a certain door frame, and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 98-18-24 also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Since we issued AD 98-18-24, it has been determined that the compliance times for the repetitive inspections must be reduced. This proposed AD would continue to require the repetitive inspections of the inner flange of a certain door frame, with reduced repetitive inspection intervals, and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 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 NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.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.

    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-2018-0455; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0455; Product Identifier 2017-NM-121-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on 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 proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We issued AD 98-18-24, Amendment 39-10740 (63 FR 49272, September 15, 1998) (“AD 98-18-24”), for certain A320 series airplanes. AD 98-18-24 was prompted by the results of a fatigue test on simulated flights which revealed cracks on the inner flange of door frame 66 at stringers 18 and 20. The cracks were located in the gusset plate attachment holes and were hidden by the gusset plates. AD 98-18-24 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking in the inner flange of door frame 66, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 98-18-24 also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We issued AD 98-18-24 to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the inner flange of door frame 66, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 98-18-24, based on the results from a full scale fatigue test, it has been determined that the repetitive inspection intervals must be reduced.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0128, dated July 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-211 and A320-231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During fatigue test on simulated flights, cracks developed on the inner flange of door frame 66 at stringer 18 and 20 positions. These cracks were located in the gusset plate attachment holes and were hidden by the plates.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the fuselage.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1071, later revised, to provide instructions to inspect and repair the gusset plate attachment holes at frame 66, at stringers 18, 20 and 22 both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) side of the fuselage (hereafter collectively referred to as “the attachment holes” in this [EASA] AD), and [Airbus] SB A320-53-1072, providing instructions for reworking of the attachment holes.

    Consequently, DGAC France issued [French] AD 1996-234-087, later revised [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-18-24], requiring repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, repair of the attachment holes, and including reference to a reworking procedure, which constitutes optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections of the attachment holes.

    Since that [French] AD was issued, based on results from a full scale fatigue test, it was determined that the inspection intervals must be reduced. Airbus issued SB A320-53-1071 Revision 03, modifying the inspection threshold and intervals, and not changing the inspection instructions.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirement of DGAC France AD 1996-234-087 R1, which is superseded, and requires reduction of the repetitive inspection interval.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0455.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the gusset plate attachment holes at door frame 66 for cracking and corrective action.

    Airbus also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1072, Revision 02, dated May 5, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modification of the gusset frame attachment at door frame 66.

    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 and Requirements of This Proposed 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 98-18-24, and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 98-18-24 is $680 per product.

    We estimate that it would take about 19 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,845, or $1,615 per product.

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

    In addition, we estimate that the optional terminating action would take about 20 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts costs would be about $60. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the optional terminating action would be $1,760 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    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 above, 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; 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.

    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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-24 Amendment 39-10740 (63 FR 49272, September 15, 1998), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0455; Product Identifier 2017-NM-121-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 98-18-24 Amendment 39-10740 (63 FR 49272, September 15, 1998) (“AD 98-18-24”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211 and Model A320-231 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 0029, 0045, 0046, 0049 through 0057 inclusive, 0059, 0064, and 0065.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the inner flange of door frame 66 at stringer 18 and 20 positions and by the results of a full scale fatigue test that indicated the intervals for the repetitive inspections required by AD 98-18-24 must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the inner flange of door frame 66, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Eddy Current Inspection, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 98-18-24, with no changes. For Model A320 series airplanes on which Airbus Modification 21778 (reference Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1072, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996) has not been accomplished: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 1 year after October 20, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-18-24), whichever occurs later: Perform a rotating probe eddy current inspection to detect cracking around the edges of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right, at stringer positions P18, P20, and P22, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996. If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles.

    (h) Retained Optional Terminating Action, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the optional terminating action of paragraph (b) of AD 98-18-24, with no changes. Modification of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right (Airbus Modification 21778), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1072, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable compliance time specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, do a rotating probe eddy current inspection to detect cracking around the edges of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,900 flight cycles.

    EP30MY18.000 (j) Corrective Actions

    (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any crack is found on a gusset plate attachment hole: Before further flight, repair the affected attachment hole, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any crack is found on any other hole of the gusset plate: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); for approved repair instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (k) Terminating Action for This AD

    (1) Repair of an attachment hole area as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that attachment hole area on that airplane only.

    (2) Repair of any other hole of the gusset plate, as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions provided by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (3) Accomplishing the initial inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (l) Optional Modification

    Modification of the gusset plate attachment holes of the inner flange of door frame 66, left and right, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1072, Revision 02, dated May 5, 2016, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for that airplane.

    (m) Reporting

    Report the results of the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD that are done on or after the effective date of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/), or submit the results to Airbus in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017. Submit the report within 30 days after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. If operators have reported findings as part of obtaining any corrective actions approved by the EASA DOA, operators are not required to report those findings as specified in this paragraph.

    (n) Service Information Exception

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 03, dated July 20, 2017, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (q)(2) of this AD.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1071, Revision 02, dated May 5, 2016.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions identified in paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1072, dated November 7, 1995, as revised by Change Notice 0A, dated July 5, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1072, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2002.

    (p) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (q) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (r)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 98-18-24 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0128, dated July 24, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0455.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. 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.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 21, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11421 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0453; Product Identifier 2018-NM-028-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of the nose landing gear (NLG) locking in a partially extended position due to loose bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism. This proposed AD would require inspecting the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG for discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 16, 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 NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    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-2018-0453; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0453; Product Identifier 2018-NM-028-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on 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 NPRM.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-01, dated January 24, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A landing incident took place whereby the aeroplane's nose landing gear (NLG) was locked in a partially-extended position, leading to gear collapse upon NLG touch down. The investigation revealed that the NLG was locked in this position due to the bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism becoming loose. This condition was present due to insufficient interference fit which resulted in some bushing outer diameter wear and fretting. A dislodged bushing will also cause the bushing sealant to break. Broken sealant allows moisture ingress and corrosion that can accelerate free play buildup. Excessive free play at the lock link can result in the inability to fully retract or deploy the NLG, resulting in a risk of NLG collapse on landing.

    Bombardier Inc. has developed an inspection to identify and correct this condition. This [Canadian] AD requires a repetitive inspection and corrective actions based on the inspection findings.

    Discrepancies include any signs of migration of the bushings, broken or missing edge sealant, diagonal paint cracks on the sealant, and paint stripe misalignment. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0453.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-153, dated September 22, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG for discrepancies. The service bulletin also describes procedures for repair or replacement of the lock link if any discrepancy is 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 per inspection cycle $0 $170 per inspection cycle $13,940 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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 proposed 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 to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

    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 above, 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; 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.

    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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0453; Product Identifier 2018-NM-028-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of the nose landing gear (NLG) locking in a partially extended position due to loose bushings on the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct excessive free play at the lock link of the NLG locking mechanism, and consequent inability to fully retract or deploy the NLG, which could result in collapse of the NLG and affect the safe landing of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Do a general visual inspection of the bushings and the lower lock link of the NLG locking mechanism for discrepancies, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-153, dated September 22, 2017. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, repair or replace the lower lock link, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight cycles.

    (1) For airplanes on which all NLG lower lock links have accumulated 7,200 or fewer total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles.

    (2) For airplanes on which any NLG lower lock link has accumulated more than 7,200 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Within 800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York 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 New York ACO Branch, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. 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.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-01, dated January 24, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0453.

    (2) For more information about this AD, Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-4000; fax: 416-375-4539; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 14, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11430 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-479] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA Into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Proposed amendment; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to publish a temporary order to schedule the synthetic cannabinoids, Naphthalen-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (trivial name: NM2201; CBL2201); N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (trivial name: 5F-AB-PINACA); 1-(4-cyanobutyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (trivial name: 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA; 4-cyano-CUMYL-BUTINACA; 4-CN-CUMYL BINACA; CUMYL-4CN-BINACA; SGT-78); methyl 2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate (trivial names: MMB-CHMICA, AMB-CHMICA); and 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H-pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine-3-carboxamide (trivial name: 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA), in schedule I. This action is based on a finding by the Acting Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cannabinoids in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. When it is issued, the temporary scheduling order will impose regulatory requirements under the CSA on the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities, and chemical analysis of these synthetic cannabinoids, as well as administrative, civil, and criminal remedies with respect to persons who fail to comply with such requirements or otherwise violate the CSA with respect to these substances.

    DATES:

    May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of intent contained in this document is issued pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intends to issue a temporary scheduling order (in the form of a temporary amendment) placing NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.1 The temporary scheduling order will be published in the Federal Register on or after June 29, 2018.

    1 Though DEA has used the term “final order” with respect to temporary scheduling orders in the past, this notice of intent adheres to the statutory language of 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which refers to a “temporary scheduling order.” No substantive change is intended.

    Legal Authority

    Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance permanently are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) while the substance is temporarily controlled under section 811(h), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

    Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    Background

    Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA.2 The Acting Administrator transmitted notice of his intent to place NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS by letter dated March 9, 2018. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice of intent by letter dated March 27, 2018, and advised that based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no approved new drug applications or active investigational new drug applications for NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the HHS has no objection to the temporary placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I of the CSA. NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals are in effect for NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA under section 505 of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 355.

    2 As discussed in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.

    To find that placing a substance temporarily in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

    A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

    Synthetic Cannabinoids

    The illicit use of the synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) has continued throughout the United States, resulting in severe adverse effects, overdoses and deaths. While new SCs continue to emerge on the illicit market, some substances identified at their peak in previous years have continued to be abused by the user population.

    SCs are substances synthesized in laboratories that mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. SCs were introduced on the designer drug market in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. From 2009 to the present, misuse of SCs has increased in the United States with law enforcement encounters describing SCs applied onto plant material and in other designer drug products intended for human consumption. Hospital reports, scientific publications and/or law enforcement reports demonstrate that NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA and their associated designer drug products are abused for their psychoactive properties. As with many generations of SCs encountered since 2009, the abuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA is impacting or will negatively impact communities.

    As observed by the DEA and CBP, SCs originate from foreign sources, such as China. Bulk powder substances are smuggled via common carrier into the United States and find their way to clandestine designer drug product manufacturing operations located in residential neighborhoods, garages, warehouses, and other similar destinations throughout the country. According to online discussion boards and law enforcement encounters, spraying or mixing the SCs with plant material provides a vehicle for the most common route of administration—smoking (using a pipe, a water pipe, or rolling the drug-laced plant material in cigarette papers).

    NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA have no accepted medical use in the United States. Use of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA has been reported to result in adverse effects in humans in the United States. In addition, NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA and MMB-CHMICA have been seized by law enforcement in the United States. Use of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA has not been documented in the United States yet, but its use has been reported to result in serious adverse events, including death, in other countries. Use of other SCs has resulted in signs of addiction and withdrawal. Based on the pharmacological similarities between NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA and other SCs, they are likely to produce signs of addiction and withdrawal similar to those produced by other SCs.

    NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are SCs that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I SCs. In addition, the misuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA has been associated with multiple overdoses requiring emergency medical intervention in the United States. With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA have emerged on the designer drug market, and the abuse or trafficking of these substances for their psychoactive properties is concerning.

    Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse

    Synthetic cannabinoids have been developed by researchers over the last 30 years as tools for investigating the endocannabinoid system (e.g., determining CB1 and CB2 receptor activity). The first encounter of SCs intended for illicit use within the United States occurred in November 2008 by CBP. Since then, the popularity of SCs as product adulterants and objects of abuse has increased as evidenced by law enforcement seizures, public health information, and media reports.

    Numerous SCs have been identified as product adulterants, and law enforcement has seized bulk amounts of these substances. As successive generations of SCs have been identified and included within schedule I, illicit distributors have developed new SC substances that vary only by slight modifications to their chemical structure while retaining pharmacological effects related to their abuse potential. These substances and products laced with these substances are marketed under the guise of “herbal incense” and promoted as a “legal high” with a disclaimer that they are “not for human consumption.” Thus, after section 1152 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), Public Law 112-144, placed cannabimimetic agents and 26 specific substances in schedule I, law enforcement documented the emergence of new SCs, including UR-144, XLR11, AKB48, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA. After these substances were temporarily scheduled (78 FR 28735, 79 FR 7577), another generation of SCs appeared, including AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201. These substances were also temporarily, and then permanently, scheduled in schedule I (80 FR 5042, 82 FR 8593).

    NM2201 was first identified in November 2012 in seized drug evidence, followed by 5F-AB-PINCA (August, 2013), MMB-CHMICA (December, 2015) and most recently 4-CN-CUMYL BUTINACA (January, 2016). While 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA has not been encountered within the U.S. yet, the use of this substance and resulting adverse events have been documented in Europe. Based on the similarity between trafficking patterns, distribution and use of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA versus other illicit SCs, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA poses significant risk for emergence in illicit drug markets in the United States. Following their manufacture in China, SCs are often encountered in countries including New Zealand, Australia and Russia before appearing throughout Europe and eventually the U.S. Recent law enforcement seizures are demonstrating that some SCs whose popularity peaked in 2014 and 2015 have remained popular within the illicit market (i.e., NM2201 and 5F-AB-PINACA). The misuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA has been associated with either law enforcement seizures or overdoses requiring emergency medical intervention. Reports of overdoses involving the ingestion of products containing NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, similar to other SCs available on the illicit market, have recently been published in the scientific literature.

    The powder form of SCs is typically dissolved in solvents (e.g., acetone) before being applied to plant material or dissolved in a propellant intended for use in electronic cigarette devices. In addition, 4-CN-CUMYL BUTINACA was identified as an adulterant on pieces of paper that were then smuggled into a detention facility and later found partially burned. Law enforcement personnel have encountered various application methods including buckets or cement mixers in which plant material and one or more SCs are mixed together, as well as large areas where the plant material is spread out so that a dissolved SC mixture can be applied directly. Once mixed, the SC plant material is then allowed to dry before manufacturers package the product for distribution, ignoring any control mechanisms to prevent contamination or to ensure a consistent, uniform concentration of the substance in each package. Adverse health consequences may also occur from directly ingesting the drug during the manufacturing process. The failure to adhere to any manufacturing standards with regard to amounts, the substance(s) included, purity, or contamination may increase the risk of adverse events. However, it is important to note that adherence to manufacturing standards would not eliminate their potential to produce adverse effects because the toxicity and safety profile of these SCs have not been studied.

    NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA similar to other SCs, have been found in powder form or mixed with dried leaves or herbal blends that were marketed for human use. Presentations at emergency departments directly linked to the abuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA or 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA have resulted in adverse symptoms, including diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, seizures, agitation, violence, nausea and memory impairment.

    Factor 5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse

    SCs continue to be encountered on the illicit market despite scheduling actions that attempt to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with these substances (see factor 5 in supporting documentation). Novel substances continue to be encountered, differing only by small chemical structural modifications intended to avoid prosecution while maintaining the pharmacological effects. Law enforcement and health care professionals continue to report the abuse of these substances and their associated products.

    As described by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), many substances being encountered in the illicit market, specifically SCs, have been available for years but have reentered the marketplace due to a renewed popularity. This is especially true for substances like NM2201 and 5F-AB-PINACA, SCs that were popular in 2014 have remained popular on the illicit market. The threat of serious injury to the individual and the imminent threat to public safety following the ingestion of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA and other SCs persist.

    Full reports of information obtained through STARLiMS,3 STRIDE,4 and NFLIS for the past five years are available under Factor 5 of the DEA 3-Factor Analysis. According to NFLIS data, state and local forensic laboratories have detected the following information about the SCs in question:

    3 STARLiMS is a laboratory information management system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by DEA laboratories. On October 1, 2014, STARLiMS replaced STRIDE as the DEA laboratory drug evidence data system of record.

    4 STRIDE is a database of drug exhibits sent to DEA laboratories for analysis. Exhibits from the database are from the DEA, other federal agencies, and some local law enforcement agencies.

    NM2201: 2,705 NFLIS reports from 30 states since 2012,5 282 STRIDE/STARLiMS reports from 21 states plus DC and Puerto Rico since 2014.

    5 At the time of query, 2017 data were still reporting.

    5F-AB-PINACA: 1,141 NFLIS reports from 36 states since 2013, 188 STRIDE/STARLiMS reports from 17 states plus DC and Guam since 2013.

    4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA: 59 NFLIS reports from 3 states since 2016.

    MMB-CHMICA: 201 NFLIS reports from 17 states since 2015, 96 STARLiMS reports from 8 states plus DC since 2015.

    5F-CUMYL-P7AICA: Currently international seizures only.

    As described previously, based on the similarity between trafficking patterns, distribution and the use of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA versus other illicit SCs, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA poses significant risk for emergence in illicit drug markets in the United States.

    Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health

    Since first being identified in the U.S. in 2008, the ingestion of SCs continues to result in serious adverse effects. Details of these events in the U.S. and/or abroad involving NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are summarized below and detailed in the DEA 3-Factor Analysis. While no adverse event information is currently available for MMB-CHMICA, increasing law enforcement seizures, scientific publications regarding its abuse and the pharmacological similarity of MMB-CHMICA to other currently controlled schedule I SCs with known risks to public health (i.e., AB-CHMINACA, AB-FUBINACA, JWH-018) demonstrate an imminent hazard to public safety (see factor 5 in supporting documentation).

    1. A previously well 25-year-old man in the United Kingdom presented with agitation, double incontinence and left-sided incoordination. His symptoms started after smoking a synthetic cannabinoid (black mamba) 5 days earlier. Over 48 hours, he developed aphasia, generalized hypertonia, hyper-reflexia and dense left hemiparesis. This progressed to profuse diaphoresis, fever, tachycardia, hypertension and a possible seizure necessitating admission to the intensive care unit. An electroencephalogram showed widespread brain wave slowing, indicating diffuse cerebral dysfunction. Toxicology analysis of the substance confirmed a potent synthetic cannabinoid NM2201.

    2. In December 2015, 25-30 people in Ocala, FL who used a synthetic cannabinoid product were taken to local hospitals following episodes of violence, fighting and experiencing seizures. Local laboratory analysis confirmed drug evidence seized from the overdose cluster as NM2201.

    3. In June 2014, a 37 year old male in Japan drove a car from a busy downtown street onto a wide sidewalk for 30 meters and hit many pedestrians one after another until it was stopped by collision with a telephone booth. A woman was killed and seven persons were injured. The driver lost consciousness and was drooling. He had no memory of what occurred after smoking. 5F-AMB and AB-CHMINACA were detected in the herbal mixture. In addition, 5F-AB-PINACA was detected in the urine sample.

    4. Between December 2017 and January 2018, at least 37 confirmed or suspected cases of intoxication occurred in Utah following ingestion of products labeled either “CBD Oil” or “YOLO.”. The products were liquids intended to be used in a vaping device or directly ingested sublingually. Further testing of these products determined that they contained the synthetic cannabinoid 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA. As per the Utah Department of Health, adverse reactions included altered mental status, hallucinations, seizures, confusion, loss of consciousness, tachycardia or slurred speech.

    5. In January 2018, 13 correctional facility workers were treated for overdose symptoms including diaphoresis, hypertension and tachycardia following ingestion of an airborne substance while conducting cell searches for contraband. In response to the overdose events, evidence retrieved from the searches tested positive for the synthetic cannabinoids 5F-ADB, 5F-EDMB-PINACA and 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA.

    6. Eight countries within Europe have reported just over 50 detections of 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA was typically detected in plant material or as a powder. The biggest detections included a 5 kg seizure (December 2014) and 7 kg seizure (January 2015) of white powder believed to originate from China.

    7. Two deaths with confirmed exposure to 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA (detected along with other substances) have been reported to the EMCDDA. These occurred in November 2016 and December 2016. In one of the cases, 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA was reported as the cause of death.

    Because they share pharmacological similarities with schedule I substances (Δ9-THC, JWH-018 and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I SCs), NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA pose serious risk to an abuser. Tolerance to SCs may develop fairly rapidly with larger doses being required to achieve the desired effect. Acute and chronic abuse of SCs in general have been linked to adverse health effects including signs of addiction and withdrawal, numerous reports of emergency department admissions resulting from their abuse, overall toxicity and deaths. Psychiatric case reports have been reported in the scientific literature detailing the SC abuse and associated psychoses. As abusers obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the identity and purity of these substances is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to users.

    NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA are being encountered on the illicit drug market in the U.S. and/or Europe and have no accepted medical use in the United States. Regardless, these products continue to be easily available and abused by diverse populations.

    Finding of Necessity of Schedule I Placement To Avoid Imminent Hazard to Public Safety

    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and/or abuse of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA, resulting from the lack of control of these substances, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA indicate that these SCs have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Acting Administrator, through a letter dated March 9, 2018, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I.

    Conclusion

    This notice of intent provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), of the DEA's intent to issue a temporary scheduling order. In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Acting Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule Naphthalen-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (trivial name: NM2201; CBL2201); N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (trivial name: 5F-AB-PINACA); 1-(4-cyanobutyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (trivial name: 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA; 4-cyano-CUMYL-BUTINACA; 4-CN-CUMYL BINACA; CUMYL-4CN-BINACA; SGT-78); methyl 2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate (trivial names: MMB-CHMICA, AMB-CHMICA); and 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H-pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine-3-carboxamide (trivial name: 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA) in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I of the CSA on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    The temporary placement of NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I of the CSA will take effect pursuant to a temporary scheduling order, which will not be issued before June 29, 2018. Because the Acting Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA in schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the temporary order scheduling these substances will be effective on the date that order is published in the Federal Register and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2). It is the intention of the Acting Administrator to issue a temporary scheduling order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. Upon publication of the temporary order, NM2201, 5F-AB-PINACA, 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, MMB-CHMICA and 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA will be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis, and possession of a schedule I controlled substance.

    The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

    Regulatory Matters

    Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for a temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of HHS. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

    Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Acting Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Acting Administrator took into consideration comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to the notice that DEA transmitted to the Assistant Secretary pursuant to section 811(h)(4).

    Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 956(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 1308.11, add paragraph (h)(31) to (35) to read as follows: 11, add paragraphs (h)(31) through (35) to read as follows:
    § 1308.11 Schedule I.

    (h) * * *

    (31) Naphthalen-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: NM2201; CBL2201) (7221) (32) N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: 5F-AB-PINACA) (7025) (33) 1-(4-cyanobutyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA; 4-cyano-CUMYL-BUTINACA; 4-CN-CUMYL BINACA; CUMYL-4CN-BINACA; SGT-78) (7089) (34) methyl 2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: MMB-CHMICA, AMB-CHMICA) (7044) (35) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1H-pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine-3-carboxamide, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: 5F-CUMYL-P7AICA) (7085)
    Dated: May 23, 2018. Robert W. Patterson, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11531 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 [Docket No. PTO-T-2017-0004] RIN 0651-AD15 Changes to the Trademark Rules of Practice To Mandate Electronic Filing AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposes to amend the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases and the Rules of Practice in Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks to mandate electronic filing of trademark applications and submissions associated with trademark applications and registrations, and to require the designation of an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence. This proposed rule would further advance the USPTO's IT strategy to achieve complete end-to-end electronic processing of trademark-related submissions, thereby improving administrative efficiency by facilitating electronic file management, optimizing workflow processes, and reducing processing errors.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 30, 2018 to ensure consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    The USPTO prefers that comments be submitted via electronic mail message to [email protected] Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Catherine Cain; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, attention Catherine Cain; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal website for additional instructions on providing comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to the USPTO or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include the docket number (PTO-T-2017-0004).

    Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail message over the internet because the Office may easily share such comments with the public. Electronic comments are preferred to be submitted in plain text, but also may be submitted in portable document format or DOC file format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into portable document format.

    The comments will be available for public inspection on the USPTO's website at http://www.uspto.gov, on the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (571) 272-8946.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: The USPTO proposes to revise the rules in parts 2 and 7 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to require electronic filing through the USPTO's Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) of all trademark applications based on section 1 and/or section 44 of the Trademark Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 1051, 1126, and submissions filed with the USPTO concerning applications or registrations. These submissions include responses to Office actions, maintenance declarations, renewal applications, international applications, subsequent designations, and direct filings with the USPTO relating to extensions of protection through the international registration system. In addition, the proposed revisions to the rules would require the designation of an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence concerning these submissions. The requirement to file an initial application through TEAS would not apply to applications based on section 66(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141f, because such applications are initially filed with the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization and subsequently transmitted to the USPTO. However, section 66(a) applicants and registrants would be required to electronically file all subsequent submissions concerning their applications or registrations and to designate an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence. This rulemaking does not include submissions made to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in ex parte or inter partes proceedings. Such submissions are currently required to be filed through the USPTO's Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).

    This proposed rule is intended to maximize end-to-end electronic processing of applications and related submissions, as well as registration maintenance filings. Achieving complete end-to-end electronic processing of all trademark submissions is a strategic objective of the USPTO. End-to-end electronic processing means that an application and all application- and registration-related submissions are filed and processed electronically, and any related correspondence between the USPTO and the relevant party is conducted entirely electronically. Thus, an application that is processed electronically end to end would be submitted through TEAS, and all submissions related to the application, such as voluntary amendments, responses to Office actions, or allegations of use, would be filed through TEAS. With this change, outgoing USPTO correspondence regarding the application would be sent by email. Likewise, all submissions related to a registration would be filed through TEAS and outgoing USPTO correspondence regarding the registration would be sent by email communication.

    Although more than 99% of applications under section 1 or section 44 are now filed electronically, only about 87% are prosecuted electronically from end to end. This means that approximately 12% of these filings still involve paper processing. Prior reductions in the filing fees for electronic submissions resulted in almost 100% of new applications being filed electronically, but did not completely close the loop on end-to-end electronic communication. The process for submitting responses and other documents is no different from the process for submitting an application. To the extent that several years ago there was a limitation on the file size that the USPTO electronic system could accept, which may have resulted in applicants and registrants submitting large evidentiary files on paper, that issue no longer exists. By mandating electronic filing of trademark applications and submissions concerning applications or registrations through TEAS, the proposed rules are intended to reduce paper processing to an absolute minimum and thus maximize end-to-end electronic processing.

    End-to-end electronic processing of all applications, related correspondence, statutorily required registration maintenance submissions, and other submissions will benefit trademark customers and increase the USPTO's administrative efficiency by facilitating electronic file management, optimizing workflow processes, and reducing processing errors. Paper submissions hinder efficiency and accuracy and are more costly to process than electronic submissions because they require manual uploading of scanned copies of the documents into the USPTO electronic records system and manual data entry of information set forth in the documents. Electronic submissions through TEAS, on the other hand, generally do not require manual processing and are automatically categorized, labeled, and uploaded directly into an electronic file wrapper in the USPTO electronic records system for review by USPTO employees and the public. If a TEAS submission contains any amendments to the application or other changes to the information in the record, often those amendments and changes are automatically entered into the electronic records system. Furthermore, TEAS submissions are more likely to include all necessary information because the USPTO can update its forms to specifically tailor the requirements of a particular submission and require that the information be validated prior to submission. Consequently, preparing and submitting an application or related document through TEAS is likely to result in a more complete submission and take less time than preparing and mailing the paper equivalent. Thus, TEAS submissions expedite processing, shorten application pendency, minimize manual data entry and potential data-entry errors, and eliminate the potential for lost or missing papers.

    This proposed rule also requires the designation of an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence concerning these submissions. Currently, in order to receive a filing date for a new application under section 1 or section 44, the USPTO requires, inter alia, that the applicant designate “an address for correspondence.” 37 CFR 2.21(a)(2). Applicants who file using the TEAS Plus or TEAS Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) options are required to designate an email address for correspondence. Those who file on paper or select the regular TEAS option may designate a postal address to satisfy this requirement. This proposed rule would require applicants and registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB, to provide and maintain an email address for correspondence. The requirement to designate an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence benefits the USPTO and its customers by reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Email correspondence can be sent, received, and processed faster than paper correspondence, which must be printed, collated, scanned, and uploaded to the electronic records system, and mailed domestically or internationally, at greater expense. Under this proposed rule, applicants and registrants, and parties to a proceeding before the TTAB, would also be required to provide and maintain a postal address, as would their qualified practitioner, if the applicant, registrant, or party is represented. This requirement ensures that the USPTO would always be able to contact the applicant, registrant, party, or practitioner in the event the email correspondence address cannot be used.

    TEAS currently provides 58 forms for filing trademark applications and other submissions related to the prosecution of applications and the maintenance of registrations. As noted above, more than 99% of trademark applications under section 1 and/or section 44 are now filed electronically through TEAS. The entire trademark application prosecution process currently can be conducted electronically, without the need for paper processing, if the applicant files the application and related submissions through TEAS and provides an email address to which the USPTO is authorized to send correspondence regarding the application. If an examining attorney issues an Office action, the USPTO can send an email notice to the applicant or its attorney at the designated email address, stating that an Office action has issued and providing a link to the USPTO's Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system where the Office action may be viewed, downloaded, and printed. The applicant can file a response to the Office action, and any subsequent submissions, through TEAS. The USPTO can also send other notices regarding the status of the application electronically to the designated email address. Once the mark is registered, the mark owner can use TEAS to file post-registration documents and the Office can communicate electronically with the mark owner concerning those submissions.

    Previous Initiatives to Increase End-to-End Electronic Processing: The USPTO previously amended its rules to encourage electronic filing through TEAS and email communication by establishing the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF filing options for applications that are based on section 1 and/or section 44. See 37 CFR 2.6. These filing options have lower application fees than a regular TEAS application, but, unlike a regular TEAS application, they require the applicant to (1) provide, authorize, and maintain an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence regarding the application and (2) file certain application-related submissions through TEAS. See 37 CFR 2.22, 2.23. If the applicant does not fulfill these requirements, the applicant must pay an additional processing fee. See 37 CFR 2.6, 2.22, 2.23.

    Despite these additional requirements, and the potential additional processing fee for noncompliance, the TEAS RF filing option is now the most popular filing option among USPTO customers, followed by TEAS Plus. These two filing options currently account for approximately 97% of all new trademark applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44, suggesting that most applicants are comfortable with filing and communicating with the USPTO electronically.

    Furthermore, in January 2017, the USPTO revised its rules to (1) increase fees for paper filings to bring the fees nearer to the cost of processing the filings and encourage customers to use lower-cost electronic options and (2) require that all submissions to the TTAB be filed through ESTTA. As a result of these rule changes, the USPTO is now processing approximately 87% of applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44 electronically end to end.

    Proposed Rule Changes:

    (1) New Applications. Under this proposed rule, § 2.21 would be amended to require applicants to file electronically, through TEAS, any trademark, service mark, certification mark, collective membership mark, or collective trademark or service mark application for registration on the Principal or Supplemental Register under section 1 and/or section 44. As noted above, the requirement to file an application through TEAS would not apply to applications based on section 66(a) because they are initially processed by the IB and subsequently transmitted electronically to the USPTO.

    The existing TEAS RF filing option, which currently requires applicants to maintain an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence regarding the application and file the application and related submissions through TEAS, would effectively become the default, or “standard,” filing option and would be renamed “TEAS Standard.” The filing fee for this option would remain $275 per class. The TEAS Plus option would also remain at $225 per class, while the TEAS option under 37 CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii) at $400 per class would be eliminated. However, the per-class fee of $400 set forth in § 2.6(a)(1)(ii), which is the current filing fee for applications under section 66(a), would be retained as the filing fee for such applications.

    Under this proposed rule, an application filed on paper under section 1 and/or section 44 would be denied a filing date unless it falls under one of the limited exceptions discussed below.

    (2) Processing Fee. Currently, the additional processing fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(v) applies to TEAS Plus applications that fail to meet the requirements under § 2.22(a) at filing, and applies to both TEAS Plus and TEAS RF applications when certain submissions are not filed through TEAS or when the applicant fails to maintain a valid email address for receipt of communications from the Office. Under this proposed rule, the processing fee would apply only to TEAS Plus applications that fail to meet the proposed revised requirements under § 2.22(a) at filing. As discussed below, all applicants and registrants, except those specifically exempted, would be required to submit electronically submissions filed in connection with an application or registration and to designate and maintain an email address for correspondence. All applicants and registrants who seek acceptance of a submission filed on paper, pursuant to proposed § 2.147, or a waiver of the requirement to file such submissions electronically, must pay the relevant paper filing fee and the paper petition fee for any submission filed on paper. Because the fees for filing on paper are higher than those for filing electronically, the Office has determined that applicants who seek acceptance of a submission filed on paper or a waiver of the requirement to file electronically should not be further penalized by being required to pay this processing fee.

    (3) Submissions Required to be Filed Through TEAS. This proposed rule would amend the rules at § 2.23 to also require that correspondence concerning a trademark application or registration under section 1, section 44, or section 66(a) be filed through TEAS, except for correspondence required to be submitted to the Assignment Recordation Branch or through ESTTA. Although all correspondence is required to be filed electronically, the USPTO recognizes that there may be certain instances when a paper filing is necessary. For those instances, the Office also proposes to codify a new regulatory section, at 37 CFR 2.147, which sets out a procedure for requesting acceptance of paper submissions under particular specified circumstances. The proposed section is discussed below in the explanation of the limited exceptions to the proposed requirements.

    Although this proposed rule would require that correspondence be filed through TEAS, it would make no such requirement for informal communications. Thus, consistent with current USPTO practice, an applicant or an applicant's attorney may still conduct informal communications with an examining attorney or post registration specialist regarding a particular application or registration by telephone or email. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 709.05.

    (4) Email Correspondence Address. This proposed rule would amend §§ 2.21, 2.23, and 7.4 to require that applicants and registrants provide a valid email correspondence address. Under current USPTO rules and practice, applicants and registrants have a duty to maintain a current and accurate correspondence address, including any designated email address to which the USPTO would send correspondence. 37 CFR 2.18(b); TMEP § 609.03. This proposed rule does not obviate this duty. Thus, except in the case of nationals from exempted treaty countries, as discussed below, the required method of communicating with the USPTO would be via email and the USPTO would send correspondence to the designated email address. If the email transmission were to fail because, for example, the applicant or registrant provided an incorrect email address, the recipient's mailbox is full, or the email provider has a service outage, the USPTO would not attempt to contact the correspondent by other means. Instead, pursuant to proposed § 2.23(d), the applicant or registrant is responsible for monitoring the status of the application or registration using the USPTO's TSDR system, which would display any USPTO Office actions and notices that have issued, any submissions received in the USPTO, and any other actions taken by the USPTO. See TMEP § 108.03.

    As noted above, applications under section 66(a) are processed and transmitted electronically to the USPTO from the IB. These applications do not include an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence, but would be subject to the proposed requirements to file all submissions electronically and to provide an email address for receipt of correspondence from the USPTO under proposed §§ 2.23(b) and 2.32(a)(2), (4).

    Limited Exceptions for Paper Submissions: There are some limited circumstances in which the USPTO would permit paper submissions of applications and correspondence, as discussed below. This proposed rule also establishes a process for filing paper submissions in such circumstances.

    (1) International Agreements: The United States (U.S.) is a member of both the Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) and the subsequent Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (STLT). TLT and STLT constitute two separate international instruments that may be ratified or acceded to independently by member countries. One provision of TLT mandates that its members accept paper trademark applications and related correspondence from nationals of other TLT members. STLT, on the other hand, allows its members to choose the means of transmittal of communications, whether on paper, in electronic form, or in any other form. This incongruity between the treaties was addressed in Article 27(2) of STLT, which provides that any Contracting Party to both STLT and TLT shall continue to apply TLT in its relation with Contracting Parties to TLT that are not parties to STLT. Accordingly, nationals of TLT members that are not also members of STLT at the time of submission of the relevant document to the USPTO would not be required to file electronically or receive communications from the Office via email, nor would they be required to submit a petition with a paper filing, until such time as their country joins STLT. Currently, the countries whose nationals the Office must accept paper trademark applications and related correspondence from are: Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, and Uzbekistan.

    (2) Specimens for Scent, Flavor, or Other Non-Traditional Marks: This proposed rule would allow for the separate submission of physical specimens when it is not possible to submit the specimen through TEAS because of the nature of the mark. For example, if the application or registration is for a scent or flavor mark, because the required specimen must show use, or continued use, of the flavor or scent, it cannot be uploaded electronically. In that situation, the applicant may submit the application through TEAS and indicate that it is mailing the specimen to the USPTO. In these circumstances, all other requirements of this proposed rule would still apply. However, the applicant or registrant would not be required to submit a petition requesting acceptance of a specimen filed on paper or waiver of the requirement to file the specimen electronically. This exception does not apply to specimens for sound marks, which can be attached to the TEAS form as an electronic file.

    (3) Petition to Accept a Paper Submission: The USPTO herein proposes a new regulatory section entitled “Petition to the Director to accept a paper submission,” which would be codified at § 2.147. Pursuant to this proposed section, an applicant or registrant may file a petition to the Director requesting acceptance of a submission filed on paper in three situations.

    Under proposed § 2.147(a), the petition may be submitted if TEAS is unavailable on the date of the deadline for the submission specified in a regulation in parts 2 or 7 of this chapter or in a section of the Act. Under this provision, the applicant or registrant would be required to submit proof that TEAS was unavailable because a technical problem, on either the USPTO's part or the user's part, prevented the user from submitting the document electronically. Generally, if a user receives an error message the first time they attempt to submit a filing electronically, the Office expects that he or she will try to ascertain and resolve failures due to user error. In situations where the inability to submit the filing was not due to user error, the Office would encourage a user to make another attempt to submit the document electronically before resorting to the paper petition process.

    The second scenario applies to a document identified in proposed § 2.147(b) that was timely submitted on paper, but not examined by the Office because it was not submitted electronically in accordance with proposed § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a). The Office would notify the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding before the TTAB that the document was not examined and must be resubmitted electronically. The applicant, registrant, or party may request that the timely filed paper submission be accepted only if the applicant, registrant, or party is unable to timely resubmit the document electronically by the statutory deadline.

    Finally, under proposed § 2.147(c), when an applicant or registrant does not meet the requirements under proposed § 2.147(a) or (b) for requesting acceptance of the paper submission, the applicant or registrant may petition the Director under § 2.146(a)(5), requesting a waiver of § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a) and documenting the nature of the extraordinary situation that prevented the party from submitting the correspondence electronically. Because the assessment of what would qualify as an extraordinary situation depends on the specific facts, the Office would address particular situations on a case-by-case basis.

    The Office intends to continue the approach it has employed in the past when USPTO technical problems rendered TEAS unavailable. For example, when verifiable issues with USPTO systems prevented electronic filing for extended periods, the Office has waived non-statutory deadlines on petition, such as the deadline for response to a post-registration Office action, as well as petition fees. Such measures help avoid negatively impacting applicants and registrants in the event of USPTO technical problems. Because the impact of technical problems varies depending on the specific facts, the Office cannot provide advance guidance about all possibilities or specific measures the USPTO may take in the future. Moreover, applicants and registrants must be mindful of the fact that statutory deadlines, such as those for submission of a statement of use or an affidavit or declaration of use under section 8 or section 71, cannot be waived. The USPTO strongly encourages applicants and registrants to ensure that they are able to timely submit the relevant document by mail in the event of an unexpected technical problem to avoid missing a statutory deadline.

    Note that the inability to submit an application or submission electronically due to regularly scheduled system maintenance does not qualify for relief under proposed § 2.147 or as an extraordinary situation under § 2.146. The USPTO routinely performs system maintenance between midnight and 5:30 a.m. Eastern Time on weeknights and at all hours on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Advance notice of the maintenance is generally posted on the USPTO Systems Status and Availability page on the USPTO website.

    (4) Postal-service Interruptions or Emergencies. The Office intends to continue the approach it has employed when there has been a postal-service interruption or emergency related to a natural disaster. In such events, the Office has generally waived certain requirements of the rules, such as non-statutory deadlines and petition fees. The Office also issues notices regarding the specific procedures to be followed in such circumstances and posts the notices on the “Operating Status” page of the USPTO website.

    Requirements for Paper Submissions: Because paper submissions would be permitted in the limited circumstances described above, the current rules addressing the requirements for paper submissions would be retained and modified, as necessary, for consistency with the other revisions in this proposed rule. In addition, the current rules governing the certificate-of-mailing and Priority Mail Express® procedures, 37 CFR 2.197 and 2.198, limit the applicability of these procedures to certain types of trademark submissions. This proposed rule would remove these limitations, making filing with a certificate of mailing or via Priority Mail Express® available for all submissions, including new applications, on the rare occasions when filing on paper would be permitted. This proposed rule would also simplify how the filing date of a submission utilizing these procedures is determined. Streamlining the requirements for filing with a certificate of mailing or via Priority Mail Express® would provide greater clarity to parties who seek to utilize these procedures and make the rules easier to administer for the Office. Although the certificate-of-mailing and Priority Mail Express® procedures would be retained, facsimile transmissions, which are currently permitted for certain types of trademark correspondence, would not be permitted for any applications or submissions under this proposed rule.

    Discussion of Proposed Regulatory Changes

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.2 to revise paragraph (e) to include the abbreviation “USPTO” and paragraphs (f) and (g) to indicate that the definitions of TEAS and ESTTA include all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through each and to delete the URLs. The USPTO also proposes to add: § 2.2(o), defining ETAS; § 2.2(p), defining “Eastern Time;” § 2.2(q), defining “electronic submission;” and § 2.2(r) defining “USPS.”

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.6 to clarify that § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) applies to applications filed under section 66(a) of the Act. The USPTO also proposes to change the wording “Reduced Fee (RF)” to “Standard” and delete the reference to § 2.23 in § 2.6(a)(1)(iii), to reword § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) for clarity, and to delete the reference to § 2.23(c) in § 2.6(a)(1)(iv).

    The USPTO proposes to delete the wording “and attorney” and the reference to TEAS in current § 2.17(d)(1), because it is unnecessary in view of proposed § 2.23(a), and to delete paragraph (d)(2) as unnecessary as a result of updates to the electronic form for filing a power of attorney.

    The USPTO proposes to add introductory text to § 2.18(a) indicating that the following paragraphs set out the procedures by which the Office would determine the address to which correspondence would be sent. The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.18(a)(1) to define when the Office will send correspondence to the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding and § 2.18(a)(2) to define when the Office will send correspondence to a qualified practitioner. The USPTO also proposes to delete current paragraphs (a)(3)-(a)(5), to redesignate current § 2.18(a)(6) as § 2.18(b) and reword for clarity, and to delete current paragraph (a)(7) and incorporate the text into proposed § 2.18(a)(2). The USPTO proposes to redesignate current § 2.18(b) as § 2.18(c) and to incorporate and clarify the requirements in current § 2.18(b)(1)-(4), which would be deleted. The USPTO proposes to redesignate current § 2.18(c)(1) as § 2.18(d), to delete the second and third sentences in current § 2.18(c)(1), to clarify that the Office will change the address if a new address is provided, to add a cross reference to proposed § 2.18(a), and to delete current § 2.18(c)(2).

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.21(a) to require that applications under section 1 or section 44 be filed through TEAS, to require the postal and email addresses for each applicant, and if the applicant is represented by a qualified practitioner, to require the postal and email addresses for the practitioner. The USPTO proposes to reword § 2.21(a)(5) for clarity, to reword § 2.21(b) and include a reference to proposed § 2.21(c), which sets out an exemption for certain countries.

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.22(a) to specify that TEAS Plus applications must satisfy the requirements of § 2.21, to delete current paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(6) and renumber the remaining paragraphs, to correct the cross reference in redesignated paragraph (a)(7) to § 2.6(a)(1)(iv), to delete the first sentence and the reference to a particular format in redesignated paragraph (a)(9), and to delete the URL in redesignated paragraph (a)(10). The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.22(b) to indicate that the applicant must comply with proposed § 2.23(a) and (b), to delete § 2.22(b)(1) and (b)(2), and to delete the second sentence in § 2.22(c).

    The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.23 to “Requirements to correspond electronically with the Office and duty to monitor status” and to delete the current text of the section. The USPTO proposes to revise § 2.23(a) to require that, unless stated otherwise, all trademark correspondence be filed through TEAS, to revise § 2.23(b) to require that applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding maintain a valid email correspondence address, to revise current § 2.23(c) to set out an exemption for nationals of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, and to add § 2.23(d) to require applicants and registrants to monitor the status of their applications and registrations.

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.24(a) to clarify that only an applicant or registrant that is not domiciled in the U.S. may designate a domestic representative. The USPTO proposes to delete § 2.24(a)(1)(i), to redesignate § 2.24(a)(1)(ii) as § 2.24(b) and require an email and postal address for a designated domestic representative, and to delete § 2.24(a)(2). The USPTO proposes to redesignate § 2.24(a)(3) as § 2.24(c) and reword for clarity, and to delete current § 2.24(b).

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.32(a)(2) to include a requirement for the postal and email addresses of each applicant, unless the applicant or registrant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks. The USPTO also proposes to amend § 2.32(a)(4) to delete the current wording and require the name, postal address, and email address of an applicant's qualified practitioner. The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.32(d) to add the word “the” before “fee.”

    The USPTO proposes to reword § 2.56(a) slightly for clarity, to amend § 2.56(d) to set out the requirements for submitting a specimen through TEAS, to revise current § 2.56(d)(1) and (2) to set out the exceptions to the proposed requirements, and to delete § 2.56(d)(3) and (4).

    The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.62 to “Procedure for submitting response,” to revise § 2.62(a) slightly for clarity, to revise § 2.62(c) for consistency with proposed § 2.23, and to add that responses filed via facsimile will not be accorded a date of receipt.

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.111(c)(2) for consistency with proposed § 2.147(b).

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.146(a) to add the words “in a trademark case” and to revise § 2.146(a)(2) and (4) to specify that the regulation applies to “parts 2, 3, 6, and 7” of Title 37.

    The USPTO proposes to add § 2.147 to set out the requirements for submitting a petition requesting acceptance of a paper submission.

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.148 to clarify that it applies to “parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this chapter.”

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.151 to indicate that the certificate of registration will issue to the owner, to reword the second and third sentences for clarity, and to change the wording “accompany” in the last sentence to “issue with.”

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.162 to change the word “includes” to “issues with the certificate” for consistency with proposed § 2.151.

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.190(a) to clarify that the paragraph refers to paper documents and that the stated mailing address should be used when trademark documents are permitted to be filed by mail. The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.190(b) to state that trademark documents filed electronically must be submitted through TEAS and that documents related to TTAB proceedings must be filed through ESTTA, and to delete the URLs. The USPTO proposes to reword § 2.190(c) for clarity and to delete the mailing address and URL. The USPTO proposes to add “certified” to the title of § 2.190(d) and to delete the first sentence and the wording “or uncertified” in the second sentence. The USPTO proposes to correct the mailing address in § 2.190(e).

    The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.191 to “Action of the Office based on the written record” and to revise the section to state that all business must be recorded in writing, to reword for clarity, and to delete the last sentence.

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.193(a)(2) and (b) to delete wording regarding submission of a photocopy or facsimile or by facsimile transmission. The USPTO proposes to amend § 2.193(c)(1) to change the wording “he or she” to “the signer,” and to revise § 2.193(d) to require submission of the first and last name and the title or position of the signatory and to delete the wording “in printed or typed form” and the wording after “the signature.” The USPTO proposes to amend the introductory text of § 2.193(e) to clarify that documents must be signed as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)-(10). The USPTO proposes to delete the term “paper” in § 2.193(e)(10), to reword § 2.193(g)(1) for clarity, and to change “correspondence” to “documents” and delete the last sentence in § 2.193(g)(2).

    The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.195 to “Filing date of trademark correspondence.” The USPTO proposes to delete current § 2.195(a)-(d) and to set out the procedures for determining the filing date of electronic and paper submissions in proposed § 2.195(a) and (b)(1) through (b)(2), to indicate when the Office is closed in proposed § 2.195(b)(3), to indicate that email and facsimile transmissions are not permitted in proposed § 2.195(c), and to redesignate current § 2.195(e) as § 2.195(d)(1)-(3) and delete current § 2.195(e)(3).

    The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 2.197 to “Certificate of mailing.” The USPTO proposes to delete current § 2.197(a)-(c) and to set out the requirements for obtaining a filing date based on a certificate of mailing in proposed § 2.197(a), the procedure when correspondence is mailed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section but not received by the Office in proposed § 2.197(b), and the filing date when the certificate of mailing does not meet the requirements in proposed § 2.197(c).

    The USPTO proposes to delete current § 2.198(a)-(f) and to clarify the filing date of correspondence submitted under this section in proposed § 2.198(a) and (b) and the procedures when there is a discrepancy, error, or non-receipt in proposed § 2.198(c)-(e).

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.1(c) to indicate that the definition of TEAS includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through TEAS and to delete a URL. The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.1(d) to add “or the abbreviation USPTO” and § 7.1(f) to add cross references to proposed § 2.2(p)-(r).

    The USPTO proposes to amend the title of § 7.4 to “International applications and registrations originating from the USPTO—Requirements to electronically file and communicate with the Office.” The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.4(a) to specify that all correspondence relating to international applications and registrations originating from the USPTO must be submitted through TEAS and include a valid email correspondence address. The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.4(b) to require that applicants and registrants maintain a valid email correspondence address and to delete current paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.4(c) to set out an exemption for nationals of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and § 7.4(d) to set out the procedure if TEAS is unavailable or when there is an extraordinary situation, and to delete paragraphs (d)(1)-(d)(6). The USPTO also proposes to delete § 7.4(e).

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.11(a) to delete the word “either,” to add a cross reference to § 7.4(a), and to specify that the Office will grant a date of receipt to an international application typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau if a paper submission is permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The USPTO also proposes to delete § 7.11(a)(12).

    The USPTO proposes to amend § 7.21(b) to delete the word “either,” to add a cross reference to § 7.4(a), and to specify that the Office will grant a date of receipt to a subsequent designation typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau if a paper submission is permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The USPTO also proposes to delete § 7.21(b)(9).

    The USPTO proposes to revise § 7.25 to delete the reference to § 2.23 and replace it with a reference to § 2.22 and to add a cross reference to § 2.198.

    Rulemaking Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

    The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015) (Interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).

    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule.”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))). However, the Office has chosen to seek public comment before implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law) to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, unless the agency certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule, if implemented, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, 605.

    For the reasons set forth herein, the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    This proposed rule would amend the regulations to require that applications filed under section 1 or section 44 of the Trademark Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 1051, 1126, and all submissions regarding an application or registration under section 1, section 44 and section 66(a), be filed electronically. The proposed rule will also require that applicants and registrants maintain a valid email correspondence address and continue to receive communications from the Office by email. The proposed rule will apply to all applicants and registrants unless acceptance of a submission filed on paper or a waiver of the proposed requirements is granted on petition, the applicant/registrant is a national of a country to which the requirements will not apply, or the requirement to file electronically is otherwise excepted, as for certain types of specimens. Applicants for a trademark are not industry specific and may consist of individuals, small businesses, non-profit organizations, and large corporations. The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistics on small- versus large-entity applicants, and this information would be required in order to determine the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rule.

    The burdens to all entities, including small entities, imposed by these rule changes will be minor procedural requirements on parties submitting applications or documents and communications in connection with an application or registration. The vast majority of users already file and prosecute applications electronically in response to previous initiatives to increase end-to-end electronic processing. For example, the USPTO amended its rules to encourage electronic filing through TEAS and email communication by establishing the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF filing options for applications that are based on section 1 and/or section 44. See 37 CFR 2.6. These filing options have lower application fees than a regular TEAS application, but they require the applicant to (1) provide, authorize, and maintain an email address for receiving USPTO correspondence regarding the application and (2) file certain application-related submissions through TEAS. See 37 CFR 2.22, 2.23. If the applicant does not fulfill these requirements, the applicant must pay an additional processing fee. See 37 CFR 2.6, 2.22, 2.23. Despite these additional requirements, and the potential additional processing fee for noncompliance, the TEAS RF filing option is now the most popular filing option among USPTO customers, followed by TEAS Plus. These two filing options currently account for approximately 97% of all trademark applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44, and more than 99% of trademark applications under section 1 and/or section 44 in total are now filed electronically through TEAS, suggesting that most applicants are comfortable with filing and communicating with the USPTO electronically.

    Furthermore, in January 2017, the USPTO revised its rules to (1) increase fees for paper filings to bring the fees nearer to the cost of processing the filings and encourage customers to use lower-cost electronic options and (2) require that all submissions to the TTAB be filed through ESTTA. As a result of these rule changes, the USPTO is now processing approximately 87% of applications filed under section 1 and/or section 44 electronically end to end.

    The proposed changes do not impose any additional economic burden unless the applicant or registrant fails to file electronically. In such cases, the economic burden to the applicant or registrant would be the higher paper fee for the submission (if a fee is required) and the fee for the petition seeking acceptance of a submission filed on paper or a waiver of the requirement to file electronically. However, as mentioned above, since the vast majority of current users already file and prosecute applications electronically, the economic impact of filing on paper is expected to be small. Moreover, this proposed rule will lead to a greater adoption of lower filing-fee options and therefore outweigh any cost burdens and likely save applicants and registrants money. For these reasons, this rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.

    E. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

    G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

    H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

    I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

    J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).

    K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).

    L. Congressional Review Act

    Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this notice is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The changes set forth in this notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    N. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

    O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.

    P. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking involves information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in this rule has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0651-0009, 0651-0050, 0651-0051, 0651-0054, 0651-0055, 0651-0056, and 0651-0061.

    You may send comments regarding the collections of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Nicholas A. Fraser, the Desk Officer for the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and (2) The Commissioner for Trademarks, by mail to P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Catherine Cain; by hand delivery to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, attention Catherine Cain; or by electronic mail message via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to the USPTO or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include the docket number (PTO-T-2017-0004).

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    37 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, International registration, Trademarks.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office proposes to amend parts 2 and 7 of title 37 as follows:

    PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10 of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 2.2 by revising paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) and by adding paragraphs (o) through (r) to read as follows:
    § 2.2 Definitions.

    (e) The term Office or abbreviation USPTO means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    (f) The acronym TEAS means the Trademark Electronic Application System and, as used in this part, includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through TEAS.

    (g) The acronym ESTTA means the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals and, as used in this part, includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through ESTTA.

    (o) The acronym ETAS means the Electronic Trademark Assignment System and, as used in this part, includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through ETAS.

    (p) Eastern Time means Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Time, as appropriate.

    (q) The term electronic submission as used in this part refers to any submission made through an electronic filing system available on the Office's website, but not through email or facsimile transmission.

    (r) The abbreviation USPS as used in this part means the U.S. Postal Service.

    3. Amend § 2.6 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (v) to read as follows:
    § 2.6 Trademark fees.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) For filing an application under section 66(a) of the Act, per class—$400.00

    (iii) For filing a TEAS Standard application, per class—$275.00

    (iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application under § 2.22, per class—$225.00

    (v) Additional processing fee under § 2.22(c), per class—$125.00

    4. Amend § 2.17 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 2.17 Recognition for representation.

    (d) Power of attorney relating to multiple applications or registrations. The owner of an application or registration may appoint a practitioner(s) qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter to represent the owner for all existing applications or registrations that have the identical owner name.

    5. Revise § 2.18 to read as follows:
    § 2.18 Correspondence, with whom held.

    (a) Establishing the correspondence address. The Office will send correspondence as follows:

    (1) If the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding is not represented by a practitioner qualified to practice before the Office under § 11.14 of this chapter, the Office will send correspondence to the applicant, registrant, or party to the proceeding.

    (2) If a power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c) is filed, the Office will send correspondence to the qualified practitioner designated in the power. Or, if, pursuant to § 2.17(b)(1)(ii) or (g), a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter submits a document(s) on behalf of an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding who is not already represented by another qualified practitioner from a different firm, the Office will send correspondence to the practitioner submitting the documents. Once the Office has recognized a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter as the representative of the applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding, the Office will communicate and conduct business only with that practitioner, or with another qualified practitioner from the same firm. A request to change the correspondence address does not revoke a power of attorney. Except for service of a cancellation petition, the Office will not conduct business directly with the applicant, registrant, or a party to a proceeding, or with another practitioner from a different firm, unless:

    (i) The applicant or registrant files a revocation of the power of attorney under § 2.19(a) and/or a new power of attorney that meets the requirements of § 2.17(c); or

    (ii) The practitioner has been suspended or excluded from practicing in trademark matters before the USPTO.

    (b) Ex parte matters. Only one correspondence address may be designated in an ex parte matter.

    (c) Changing the owner and correspondence addresses. The applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding must maintain current and accurate postal and email addresses for itself and its qualified practitioner, if one is designated. If any of these addresses change, a request to change the address, signed in accordance with § 2.193(e)(9), must be promptly filed.

    (d) Post registration filings under sections 7, 8, 9, 12(c), 15, and 71. Even if there is no new power of attorney or written request to change the correspondence address, the Office will change the correspondence address upon the examination of an affidavit under section 8, 12(c), 15, or 71 of the Trademark Act, renewal application under section 9 of the Act, or request for amendment or correction under section 7 of the Act, if a new address is provided, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.

    6. Revise § 2.21 to read as follows:
    § 2.21 Requirements for receiving a filing date.

    (a) The Office will grant a filing date to an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act that is filed through TEAS, is written in the English language, and contains all of the following:

    (1) The name, postal address, and email address of each applicant;

    (2) If the applicant is represented by a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner's name, postal address, and email address;

    (3) A clear drawing of the mark;

    (4) A listing of the goods or services; and

    (5) The filing fee required under § 2.6 for at least one class of goods or services.

    (b) If the applicant does not satisfy all the elements required in paragraph (a) of this section, the Office will deny a filing date to the application unless the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.

    (c) If the applicant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to file through TEAS and provide an email address do not apply.

    7. Revise § 2.22 to read as follows:
    § 2.22 Requirements for a TEAS Plus application.

    (a) A trademark/service mark application for registration on the Principal Register under section 1 and/or section 44 of the Act that meets the requirements for a filing date under § 2.21 will be entitled to a reduced filing fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) if it includes:

    (1) The applicant's legal entity;

    (2) The citizenship of each individual applicant, or the state or country of incorporation or organization of each juristic applicant;

    (3) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and citizenship of the applicant's general partners;

    (4) One or more bases for filing that satisfy all the requirements of § 2.34. If more than one basis is set forth, the applicant must comply with the requirements of § 2.34 for each asserted basis;

    (5) Correctly classified goods and/or services, with an identification of goods and/or services from the Office's Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual, available through the TEAS Plus form. In an application based on section 44 of the Act, the scope of the goods and/or services covered by the section 44 basis may not exceed the scope of the goods and/or services in the foreign application or registration;

    (6) If the application contains goods and/or services in more than one class, compliance with § 2.86;

    (7) A filing fee for each class of goods and/or services, as required by § 2.6(a)(1)(iv);

    (8) A verified statement that meets the requirements of § 2.33, dated and signed by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of the owner pursuant to § 2.193(e)(1);

    (9) If the applicant does not claim standard characters, the applicant must attach a digitized image of the mark. If the mark includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color;

    (10) If the mark is in standard characters, a mark comprised only of characters in the Office's standard character set, typed in the appropriate field of the TEAS Plus form;

    (11) If the mark includes color, a statement naming the color(s) and describing where the color(s) appears on the mark, and a claim that the color(s) is a feature of the mark;

    (12) If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of the mark;

    (13) If the mark includes non-English wording, an English translation of that wording;

    (14) If the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration of those characters;

    (15) If the mark includes an individual's name or portrait, either:

    (i) A statement that identifies the living individual whose name or likeness the mark comprises and written consent of the individual; or

    (ii) A statement that the name or portrait does not identify a living individual (see section 2(c) of the Act).

    (16) If the applicant owns one or more registrations for the same mark, and the owner(s) last listed in Office records of the prior registration(s) for the same mark differs from the owner(s) listed in the application, a claim of ownership of the registration(s) identified by the registration number(s), pursuant to § 2.36; and

    (17) If the application is a concurrent use application, compliance with § 2.42.

    (b) In addition to the filing requirements under paragraph (a) of this section, the applicant must comply with § 2.23(a) and (b).

    (c) If an application does not fulfill the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the applicant must pay the processing fee required by § 2.6(a)(1)(v).

    (d) The following types of applications cannot be filed as TEAS Plus applications:

    (1) Applications for certification marks (see § 2.45);

    (2) Applications for collective trademarks and service marks (see § 2.44);

    (3) Applications for collective membership marks (see § 2.44); and

    (4) Applications for registration on the Supplemental Register (see § 2.47).

    8. Revise § 2.23 to read as follows:
    § 2.23 Requirements to correspond electronically with the Office and duty to monitor status.

    (a) Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all trademark correspondence must be submitted through TEAS.

    (b) Applicants, registrants, and parties to a proceeding must provide and maintain a valid email address for correspondence.

    (c) If the applicant or registrant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply.

    (d) Notices issued or actions taken by the USPTO are displayed in the USPTO's electronic systems. Applicants and registrants are responsible for monitoring the status of their applications and registrations in the USPTO's electronic systems during the following time periods:

    (1) At least every six months between the filing date of the application and issuance of a registration; and

    (2) After filing an affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 or section 71 of the Trademark Act, or a renewal application under section 9 of the Act, at least every six months until the registrant receives notice that the affidavit or renewal application has been accepted.

    9. Revise § 2.24 to read as follows:
    § 2.24 Designation and revocation of domestic representative by foreign applicant.

    (a) An applicant or registrant that is not domiciled in the United States may designate a domestic representative (i.e., a person residing in the United States on whom notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark may be served).

    (b) The designation, or a request to change or revoke a designation, must set forth the name, email address, and postal address of the domestic representative and be signed pursuant to § 2.193(e)(8).

    (c) The mere designation of a domestic representative does not authorize the person designated to represent the applicant or registrant.

    10. Amend § 2.32 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (4) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 2.32 Requirements for a complete trademark or service mark application.

    (a) * * *

    (2) The name, postal address, and email address of each applicant. If the applicant or registrant is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirement to provide an email address does not apply;

    (4) If the applicant is represented by a practitioner qualified under § 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner's name, postal address, and email address;

    (d) The application must include the fee required by § 2.6 for each class of goods or services.

    11. Amend § 2.56 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 2.56 Specimens.

    (a) An application under section 1(a) of the Act, an amendment to allege use under § 2.76, or a statement of use under § 2.88 must include one specimen per class showing the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services identified. When requested by the Office as reasonably necessary to proper examination, additional specimens must be provided.

    (d) The specimen must be submitted through TEAS in a file format designated as acceptable by the Office, unless:

    (1) The mark consists of a scent, flavor, or similar non-traditional mark type, in which case the specimen may be mailed to the Office, pursuant to § 2.190(a), without resort to the procedures set forth in § 2.147; or

    (2) Submission on paper is permitted under § 2.23(c) or is accepted on petition pursuant to § 2.147.

    12. Revise § 2.62 to read as follows:
    § 2.62 Procedure for submitting response.

    (a) Deadline. The applicant's response to an Office action must be received by the USPTO within six months from the issue date.

    (b) Signature. The response must be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2).

    (c) Form. Pursuant to § 2.23(a), responses must be submitted through TEAS. Responses sent via email or facsimile will not be accorded a date of receipt.

    13. Amend § 2.111 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 2.111 Filing petition for cancellation.

    (c) * * *

    (2)(i) In the event that ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present, a petition to cancel may be filed in paper form. A paper petition to cancel a registration must be accompanied by a Petition to the Director under § 2.146, with the fees therefor and the showing required under this paragraph (c). Timeliness of the paper submission, if relevant to a ground asserted in the petition to cancel, will be determined in accordance with §§ 2.195 through 2.198.

    (ii) For a petition to cancel a registration on the fifth year anniversary of the date of registration of the mark, a petitioner for cancellation who meets the requirements of § 2.147(b) may submit a petition to the Director to accept a timely filed paper petition to cancel.

    14. Amend § 2.146 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 2.146 Petitions to the Director.

    (a) Petition may be taken to the Director in a trademark case:

    (1) From any repeated or final formal requirement of the examiner in the ex parte prosecution of an application if permitted by § 2.63(a) and (b);

    (2) In any case for which the Act of 1946, Title 35 of the United States Code, or parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies that the matter is to be determined directly or reviewed by the Director;

    (3) To invoke the supervisory authority of the Director in appropriate circumstances;

    (4) In any case not specifically defined and provided for by parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or

    (5) In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires and no other party is injured thereby, to request a suspension or waiver of any requirement of the rules not being a requirement of the Act of 1946.

    15. Add § 2.147 to read as follows:
    § 2.147 Petition to the Director to accept a paper submission.

    (a) Paper submission when TEAS is unavailable on the date of a filing deadline. (1) An applicant or registrant may file a petition to the Director under this section requesting acceptance of a submission filed on paper if:

    (i) TEAS is unavailable on the date of the deadline for the submission specified in a regulation in part 2 or 7 of this chapter or in a section of the Act; and

    (ii) The petition is timely filed, pursuant to § 2.197 or § 2.198, on the date of the deadline.

    (2) The petition must include:

    (i) The paper submission;

    (ii) Proof that TEAS was unavailable on the date of the deadline;

    (iii) A statement of the facts relevant to the petition, supported by a declaration under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C. 1746 that is signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter;

    (iv) The fee for a petition filed on paper under § 2.6(a)(15)(i); and

    (v) Any other required fee(s) under § 2.6 for the paper submission.

    (b) Certain paper submissions timely filed before the date of a filing deadline. (1) An applicant, registrant, or petitioner for cancellation may file a petition to the Director under this section, requesting acceptance of any of the following submissions that was timely submitted on paper and otherwise met the minimum filing requirements, but not examined by the Office because it was not submitted electronically pursuant to § 2.21(a), § 2.23(a), or § 2.111(c), and the applicant, registrant, or petitioner for cancellation is unable to timely resubmit the document electronically by the deadline:

    (i) An application seeking a priority filing date with a deadline under section 44(d)(1) of the Act;

    (ii) A statement of use filed within the last six months of the period specified in section 1(d)(2) of the Act;

    (iii) An affidavit or declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse with a deadline under section 8(a)(3) or section 71(a)(3) of the Act;

    (iv) A request for renewal of a registration with a deadline under section 9(a) of the Act;

    (v) An application for transformation of an extension of protection into a United States application with a deadline under section 70 of the Act; or

    (vi) A petition to cancel a registration under section 14 of the Act on the fifth year anniversary of the date of the registration of the mark.

    (2) The petition must be filed by not later than two months after the issue date of the notice denying acceptance of the paper filing and must include:

    (i) A statement of the facts relevant to the petition, supported by a declaration under § 2.20 or 28 U.S.C. 1746 that is signed by the petitioner, someone with legal authority to bind the petitioner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter;

    (ii) Proof that a sufficient fee accompanied the original paper submission;

    (iii) The required fee(s) under § 2.6 for the paper submission; and

    (iv) The relevant petition fee under § 2.6(a)(15).

    (c) Petition under § 2.146. If the applicant or registrant is unable to meet the requirements under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section for filing the petition, the applicant or registrant may submit a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(5) to request a waiver of § 2.21(a) or § 2.23(a).

    (d) This section does not apply to requirements for paper submissions to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board except as specified in paragraph (b)(vi).

    16. Revise § 2.148 to read as follows:
    § 2.148 Director may suspend certain rules.

    In an extraordinary situation, when justice requires and no other party is injured thereby, any requirement of the rules in parts 2, 3, 6, and 7 of this chapter that is not a requirement of the Act may be suspended or waived by the Director.

    17. Revise § 2.151 to read as follows:
    § 2.151 Certificate.

    When the Office determines that a mark is registrable, the Office will issue to the owner a certificate of registration on the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register. The certificate will state the application filing date, the act under which the mark is registered, the date of issue, and the number of the registration and will include a reproduction of the mark and pertinent data from the application. A notice of the requirements of sections 8 and 71 of the Act will issue with the certificate.

    18. Revise § 2.162 to read as follows:
    § 2.162 Notice to registrant.

    When a certificate of registration is originally issued, the Office issues with the certificate a notice of the requirement for filing the affidavit or declaration of use or excusable nonuse under section 8 of the Act. However, the affidavit or declaration must be filed within the time period required by section 8 of the Act even if this notice is not received.

    19. Revise § 2.190 to read as follows:
    § 2.190 Addresses for trademark correspondence with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    (a) Paper trademark documents. In general, trademark documents to be delivered by the USPS must be addressed to: Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 22313-1451. Trademark-related documents to be delivered by hand, private courier, or other delivery service may be delivered during the hours the Office is open to receive correspondence to the Trademark Assistance Center, James Madison Building—East Wing, Concourse Level, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

    (b) Electronic trademark documents. Trademark documents filed electronically must be submitted through TEAS. Documents that relate to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board must be filed electronically with the Board through ESTTA.

    (c) Trademark assignment documents. Requests to record documents in the Assignment Recordation Branch may be filed electronically through ETAS. Paper documents and cover sheets to be recorded in the Assignment Recordation Branch should be addressed as designated in § 3.27 of this chapter.

    (d) Requests for certified copies of trademark documents. Paper requests for certified copies of trademark documents should be addressed to: Mail Stop Document Services, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.

    (e) Certain documents relating to international applications and registrations. International applications under § 7.11, subsequent designations under § 7.21, responses to notices of irregularity under § 7.14, requests to record changes in the International Register under § 7.23 and § 7.24, requests to note replacements under § 7.28, requests for transformation under § 7.31 of this chapter, and petitions to the Director to review an action of the Office's Madrid Processing Unit must be addressed to: Madrid Processing Unit, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-5796.

    20. Revise § 2.191 to read as follows:
    § 2.191 Action of the Office based on the written record.

    All business with the Office must be transacted in writing. The action of the Office will be based exclusively on the written record. No consideration will be given to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding when there is disagreement or doubt.

    21. Amend § 2.193 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c)(1), and (d), the introductory text of paragraph (e), (e)(10), and (g) to read as follows:
    § 2.193 Trademark correspondence and signature requirements.

    (a) * * *

    (2) An electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, personally entered by the person named as the signatory. The Office will accept an electronic signature that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section on correspondence filed on paper or through TEAS or ESTTA.

    (b) Copy of original signature. If a copy of an original signature is filed, the filer should retain the original as evidence of authenticity. If a question of authenticity arises, the Office may require submission of the original.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Personally enter any combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks that the signer has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash (“/”) symbols in the signature block on the electronic submission; or

    (d) Signatory must be identified. The first and last name, and the title or position, of the person who signs a document in connection with a trademark application, registration, or proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board must be set forth immediately below or adjacent to the signature.

    (e) Proper person to sign. Documents filed in connection with a trademark application or registration must be signed as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (10) of this section:

    (10) Cover letters. A person transmitting documents to the Office may sign a cover letter or transmittal letter. The Office neither requires cover letters nor questions the authority of a person who signs a communication that merely transmits documents.

    (g) Separate copies for separate files. (1) Since each file must be complete in itself, a separate copy of every document filed in connection with a trademark application, registration, or inter partes proceeding must be furnished for each file to which the document pertains, even though the documents filed in multiple files may be identical.

    (2) Parties should not file duplicate copies of documents in a single application, registration, or proceeding file, unless the Office requires the filing of duplicate copies.

    22. Revise § 2.195 to read as follows:
    § 2.195 Filing date of trademark correspondence.

    The filing date of trademark correspondence is determined as follows:

    (a) Electronic submissions. The filing date of an electronic submission is the date the Office receives the submission, based on Eastern Time, regardless of whether that date is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.

    (b) Paper correspondence. The filing date of a submission submitted on paper is the date the Office receives the submission, except as follows:

    (1) Priority Mail Express®. The filing date of the submission is the date of deposit with the USPS, if filed pursuant to the requirements of § 2.198.

    (2) Certificate of mailing. The filing date of the submission is the date of deposit with the USPS, if filed pursuant to the requirements of § 2.197.

    (3) Office closed. The Office is not open to receive paper correspondence on any day that is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.

    (c) Email and facsimile submissions. Email and facsimile submissions are not permitted and if submitted will not be accorded a date of receipt.

    (d) Interruptions in U.S. Postal Service. If the Director designates a postal service interruption or emergency within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 21(a), any person attempting to file correspondence by Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service who was unable to deposit the correspondence with the USPS due to the interruption or emergency may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office. The petition must:

    (1) Be filed promptly after the ending of the designated interruption or emergency;

    (2) Include the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and

    (3) Include a statement that the correspondence would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service on the requested filing date but for the designated interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service; and that the correspondence attached to the petition is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited as Priority Mail Express® on the requested filing date.

    23. Revise § 2.197 to read as follows:
    § 2.197 Certificate of mailing.

    (a) The filing date of correspondence submitted under this section is the date of deposit with the USPS if the correspondence:

    (1) Is addressed as set out in § 2.190 and deposited with the USPS with sufficient postage as first-class mail; and

    (2) Includes a certificate of mailing for each piece of correspondence that:

    (i) Attests to the mailing and the address used;

    (ii) Includes the name of the document and the application serial number or USPTO reference number, if assigned, or registration number to which the document pertains;

    (iii) Is signed separately from any signature for the correspondence by a person who has a reasonable basis to expect that the correspondence would be mailed on the date indicated; and

    (iv) Sets forth the date of deposit with the USPS.

    (b) If correspondence is mailed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, but not received by the Office, the party who mailed such correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the date of deposit with the USPS. The petition must:

    (1) Be filed within two months after the date of mailing;

    (2) Include a copy of the previously mailed correspondence and certificate; and

    (3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.

    (c) If the certificate of mailing does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the filing date is the date the Office receives the submission.

    24. Revise § 2.198 to read as follows:
    § 2.198 Filing of correspondence by Priority Mail Express®.

    (a) The filing date of correspondence submitted under this section is the date of deposit with the USPS, as shown by the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® label or other official USPS notation.

    (b) If the USPS deposit date cannot be determined, the filing date is the date the Office receives the submission.

    (c) If there is a discrepancy between the filing date accorded by the Office to the correspondence and the “date accepted,” the party who submitted the correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the “date accepted.” The petition must:

    (1) Be filed within two months after the date of deposit;

    (2) Include a true copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted,” and any other official notation by the USPS relied upon to show the date of deposit; and

    (3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.

    (d) If the party who submitted the correspondence can show that the “date accepted” was incorrectly entered or omitted by the USPS, the party may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the date the correspondence is shown to have been deposited with the USPS. The petition must:

    (1) Be filed within two months after the date of deposit;

    (2) Include proof that the correspondence was deposited in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service prior to the last scheduled pickup on the requested filing date. Such proof must be corroborated by evidence from the USPS or evidence that came into being within one business day after the date of deposit; and

    (3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.

    (e) If correspondence is properly addressed to the Office pursuant to § 2.190 and deposited with sufficient postage in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but not received by the Office, the party who submitted the correspondence may file a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(2) to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the USPS deposit date. The petition must:

    (1) Be filed within two months after the date of deposit;

    (2) Include a copy of the previously mailed correspondence showing the number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon; and

    (3) Include a verified statement attesting to the facts of the original mailing.

    PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION OF MARKS 25. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 7 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.

    26. Amend § 7.1 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) to read as follows:
    § 7.1 Definitions of terms as used in this part.

    (c) The acronym TEAS means the Trademark Electronic Application System, and, as used in this part, includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through TEAS.

    (d) The term Office or the abbreviation USPTO means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    (f) The definitions specified in § 2.2(k), (n), and (p) through (r) of this chapter apply to this part.

    27. Revise § 7.4 to read as follows:
    § 7.4 International applications and registrations originating from the USPTO—Requirements to electronically file and communicate with the Office.

    (a) Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all correspondence filed with the USPTO relating to international applications and registrations originating from the USPTO must be submitted through TEAS and include a valid email correspondence address.

    (b) Applicants and registrants under this section must provide and maintain a valid email address for correspondence with the Office.

    (c) If an applicant or registrant under this section is a national of a country that has acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty, but not to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply.

    (d) If TEAS is unavailable, or in an extraordinary situation, an applicant or registrant under this section who is required to file a submission through TEAS may submit a petition to the Director under § 2.146(a)(5) and (c) of this chapter to accept the submission filed on paper.

    28. Amend § 7.11 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a), (a)(10), and (a)(11), and removing paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:
    § 7.11 Requirements for international application originating from the United States.

    (a) The Office will grant a date of receipt to an international application that is filed through TEAS in accordance with § 7.4(a), or typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau, if permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The international application must include all of the following:

    (10) If the application is filed through TEAS, the international application fees for all classes, and the fees for all designated Contracting Parties identified in the international application (see § 7.7); and

    (11) A statement that the applicant is entitled to file an international application in the Office, specifying that applicant: is a national of the United States; has a domicile in the United States; or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States. Where an applicant's address is not in the United States, the applicant must provide the address of its U.S. domicile or establishment.

    29. Amend § 7.21 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (b), (b)(7), and (b)(8), and removing paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows:
    § 7.21 Subsequent designation.

    (b) The Office will grant a date of receipt to a subsequent designation that is filed through TEAS in accordance with § 7.4(a), or typed on the official paper form issued by the International Bureau, if permitted under § 7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to § 7.4(d). The subsequent designation must contain all of the following:

    (7) The U.S. transmittal fee required by § 7.6; and

    (8) If the subsequent designation is filed through TEAS, the subsequent designation fees (see § 7.7).

    30. Amend § 7.25 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 7.25 Sections of part 2 applicable to extension of protection.

    (a) Except for §§ 2.21, 2.22, 2.76, 2.88, 2.89, 2.130, 2.131, 2.160 through 2.166, 2.168, 2.173, 2.175, 2.181 through 2.186, 2.197, and 2.198, all sections in parts 2 and 11 of this chapter shall apply to an extension of protection of an international registration to the United States, including sections related to proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, unless otherwise stated.

    Dated: May 21, 2018. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11353 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0390; FRL-9978-59-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; KY; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Louisville Unclassifiable Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 4, 2018, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the portion of Kentucky that is within the bi-state Louisville, KY-IN fine particulate matter (PM2.5) unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the “bi-state Louisville Area” or “Area”) to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The bi-state Louisville Area consists of Jefferson County and a portion of Bullitt County in Kentucky as well as Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana. EPA now has sufficient data to determine that the bi-state Louisville Area is in attainment of the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's request and redesignate the Area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the PM2.5 monitors in the bi-state Louisville Area are in compliance with the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0390 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Madolyn Sanchez may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air quality management through the establishment and implementation of the NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3085 (January 15, 2013). EPA established the standard based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter.

    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On December 18, 2014, EPA designated the majority of areas across the country as nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable 1 for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from monitors for calendar years 2011-2013. See 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015). EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking also described a process by which EPA would evaluate any complete, quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2014 that a state submitted for consideration before February 27, 2015. EPA stated that it would evaluate whether, with the inclusion of certified 2014 data, the 3-year design value for 2012-2014 suggests that a change in the initial designation would be appropriate for an area. If EPA agreed that a change in the initial designation would be appropriate, EPA would withdraw the designation announced in the January 15, 2015, document for such area before the effective date and issue another designation reflecting the inclusion of 2014 data.

    1 For the initial PM area designations in 2014 (for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of “unclassifiable/attainment” for areas that had monitors showing attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category “unclassifiable” for areas in which EPA could not determine, based upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby violations. EPA reserves the “attainment” category for when EPA redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.

    In a follow-up designation action published on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18535), EPA designated five areas as unclassifiable/attainment in Georgia, including two neighboring counties in the bordering states of Alabama and South Carolina, that were initially deferred in EPA's January 15, 2015, rulemaking. In the same action, EPA changed the designations for one area in Ohio, two areas in Pennsylvania, and one bi-state area with portions in Kentucky and Ohio from nonattainment to unclassifiable/attainment. The bi-state Louisville Area was changed from nonattainment to unclassifiable.

    EPA initially designated the bi-state Louisville Area as nonattainment in its January 15, 2015, rulemaking based on ambient air quality data collected from 2011-2013. In that time period, a monitor in Clark County, Indiana, showed a violation of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Per its policy, EPA explained that it would change the designation for the Area if data showed that the monitor in Clark County, Indiana, met the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the design value period 2012-2014, and Indiana elected to early certify 2014 ambient air quality data. Indiana submitted complete, quality-assured, and certified 2014 data from the ambient air quality monitor in Clark County, Indiana, by the prescribed deadline of February 27, 2015, showing that the monitor was attaining the NAAQS. However, as noted in the final technical support document (TSD) for the Area included in the docket for the January 15, 2015, rulemaking,2 EPA explained that because air quality data in the Jefferson County, Kentucky portion of the Area were invalid due to issues with the collection and analysis of PM2.5 filter-based samples, EPA could only change the designation to unclassifiable. Therefore, EPA changed the designation of the Area from nonattainment to unclassifiable in the action published on April 15, 2015.

    2 Available in the January 15, 2015, rulemaking docket as document number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918-0322.

    II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised “on the basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.” The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the request.

    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the considerations under section 107(d)(3)(A).3 In keeping with section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/attainment must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The relevant monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The designated monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period.4

    3 While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.

    4See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality Management Division, entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (September 4, 1992).

    III. What is EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the area?

    In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean concentrations (i.e., design value) over the most recent 3-year period must be less than or equal to 12.0 µg/m3 at all monitoring sites in the Area over the full 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.18 and Appendix N of Part 50. EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from monitoring stations in the bi-state Louisville Area for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 3-year period from 2014-2016. These data have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in AQS by Kentucky and Indiana, and the monitoring locations have not changed during the monitoring period. As summarized in Table 1, the design values for all monitors in the Area for the 2014-2016 period are below the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Table 1—2012 Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in the Bi-State Louisville Area for 2014-2016 County Monitoring
  • site
  • 2014-2016
  • design
  • value
  • (μg/m3)
  • Clark County, IN 180190006
  • 180190008
  • 10.6
  • 8.7
  • Floyd County, IN 180431004 9.3 Jefferson County, KY 211110043
  • 211110051
  • 211110067
  • 211110075
  • 10.4
  • 10.3
  • 9.5
  • 10.4
  • Because the 3-year design values, based on complete, quality-assured data, demonstrate that the Area meets the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard, EPA is proposing to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for this NAAQS.5

    5 The State of Indiana has not yet submitted a redesignation request for its portion of the Louisville Area.

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's May 4, 2018, request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the bi-state Louisville Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of the portion of Bullitt County located in the Area and Jefferson County, Kentucky, from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

    • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because redesignations are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The proposed action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11567 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 104 Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Correction AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains a correction of a 60 day notice and request for comment for a currently approved information collection that was published in the April 9, 2018, Federal Register. The notice uses OMB control number 0580-0022, which has since been changed to OMB control number 0581-0306 due to the realignment of offices authorized by the Secretary's memorandum dated November 14, 2017. This Secretary's memorandum eliminated the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration as a standalone agency it is now organized under the Agricultural Marketing Service. This document corrects the notice by updating the OMB control number.

    DATES:

    The document published on April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15125), is corrected as of May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Candace A. Hildreth, Compliance Officer, at (202) 720-0203.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2018-07211 appearing in the Federal Register of Monday, April 9, 2018 [83 FR 15125], the following correction is made:

    On page 15126, in the first column, the OMB Number should state: 0581-0306.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Greg Ibach, Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11533 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 24, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 29, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: The Integrity Program (TIP) Data Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0401.

    Summary of Collection: This is a request for extension, without revision, to an existing collection. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) regulations at 7 CFR 246.12(j)(5), require State agencies to report annually on their vendor monitoring efforts. The data collected is used by States agencies as a management tool and at the national level to provide Congress, senior FNS officials, as well as the general public, assurances that every reasonable effort is being made to ensure integrity in the WIC Program.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will collect information using forms FNS 698, Profile of Integrity Practices and Procedures; FNS 699, the Integrity Profile Report Form; and FNS 700, TIP Data Entry Form. The collected information from the forms will be analyzed and a report is prepared by FNS annually that (1) assesses State agency progress in eliminating abusive vendors, (2) assesses the level of activity that is being directed to ensure program integrity, and (3) analyzes trends over a 5-year period. The information is used at the national level in formulating program policy and regulations. At the FNS regional office level, the data is reviewed to identify possible vendor management deficiencies so that technical assistance can be provided to States, as needed. Without the information, FNS would not have timely and accurate data needed to identify and correct State agency vendor management and monitoring deficiencies and to implement corrective actions.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 90.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 38.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11512 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0036] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Pale Cyst Nematode AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of the pale cyst nematode to noninfested areas of the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0036.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0036, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0036 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of pale cyst nematode, contact Mr. Jonathon Jones, National Policy Manager, Plan Health Programs, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 160, Riverdale, MD 20737 or at 301-851-2128. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at 301-851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Pale Cyst Nematode.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0322.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plants pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States.

    In accordance with the regulations in “Subpart-Pale Cyst Nematode” (7 CFR 301.86 through 301.86-9), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of U.S. Department of Agriculture restricts the interstate movement of certain articles to help prevent the spread of pale cyst nematode, a major pest of potato crops in cool-temperature areas, via potatoes, soil, and other host material to noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations involve information collection activities such as certificates, permits, appeals, compliance agreements, self-certifications, packing facility process approvals, and labeling.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of Burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.12 hours per response.

    Respondents: U.S. potato producers, packers, processors, and handlers.

    Estimated Annual number of Respondents: 119.

    Estimated Annual number of Responses per Respondent: 31.

    Estimated Annual number of Responses: 3,725.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 445 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of May 2018. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11532 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Comments Requested: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form (FNS 543) 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 is a revision of a currently approved information collection from organizations fighting hunger and poverty.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    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.

    Comments may be sent to: Celeste Perkins, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 941, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Celeste Perkins at 703-305-2012 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. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 941, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

    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 Celeste Perkins at 703-305-2012.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse Database Form.

    Form Number: FNS-543.

    OMB Number: 0584-0474.

    Expiration Date: 10/31/2018.

    Type of Request: Revised Collection.

    Abstract: Section 26(d) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769g(d)) (the Act), which was added to the Act by section 123 of Public Law 103-448 on November 2, 1994, mandated that FNS enter into a contract with a non-governmental organization to establish and maintain an information clearinghouse (named “USDA National Hunger Clearinghouse” or “Clearinghouse”) for groups that assist low-income individuals or communities regarding nutrition assistance programs or other assistance. Section 26(d) of this Act was amended again by Public Law 113-79 on February 7, 2014 to extend funding for the Clearinghouse through fiscal year 2015 for $250,000. FNS awarded this contract to the hunger advocacy organization Hunger Free America on October 1, 2014.

    The Clearinghouse includes a database of non-governmental, grassroots organizations in the areas of hunger and nutrition, along with a mailing list to communicate with these organizations. These organizations enter their information into the database, and Clearinghouse staff use that information to provide the public with information about where they can get food assistance. Surveys (FNS-543) will be completed online at fns.usda.gov/nhc. Information from past collections will be used as an estimate for future data collection for fiscal year 2018. From this information collection, the following information was determined:

    Affected Public: Respondent groups identified include (1) Food banks—Not for Profit, (2) Business or Other For-Profits, and (3) Other Not For Profit. Most of these groups are organizations providing nutrition assistance services to the public.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Each respondent is expected to only participate in one survey.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 600.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes (0.0833 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,000 minutes (50 hours).

    See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

    Reporting Burden Respondent Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Responses
  • annually per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • (col. b x c)
  • Estimated
  • avg. number
  • of hours
  • per response
  • Estimated
  • total hours
  • (col. d x e)
  • Food Banks (Not for Profit) 300 1 300 0.0833 24.99 Business and Other For Profit 100 1 100 0.0833 8.33 Other Not For Profit 200 1 200 0.0833 16.66 Total Reporting Burden 600 600 49.98
    Dated: May 22, 2018. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11477 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grants AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications for the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program. The Agency will publish the program funding level on the SDGG website located at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/socially-disadvantaged-groups-grant. Expenses incurred in developing applications are the responsibility of the applicant.

    The purpose of this program is to provide technical assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups in rural areas. Eligible applicants include Cooperatives, Groups of Cooperatives, and Cooperative Development Centers. This program supports Rural Development's (RD) mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.

    DATES:

    Completed applications for grants must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:

    Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date.

    Electronic copies must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time July 24, 2018. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.

    ADDRESSES:

    You should contact the USDA RD State Office (State Office) located in the State where you are headquartered if you have questions. Contact information for State Offices can be found at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Program guidance as well as application templates may be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/socially-disadvantaged-groups-grant or by contacting your State Office. If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the SDGG funding announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. Please review the Grants.gov website at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you can meet the electronic application deadline. You are strongly encouraged to file your application early and allow sufficient time to manage any technical issues that may arise. If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. If you are headquartered in Washington, DC, please contact the Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, at (202) 690-1374 for guidance on where to submit your application.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Horst, Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, MS 3253, Room 4208-South, Washington, DC 20250-3250, or call 202-690-1374.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Preface

    The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America. https://www.usda.gov/topics/rural/rural-prosperity. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:

    • Achieving e-Connectivity for rural America • Developing the Rural Economy • Harnessing Technological Innovation • Supporting a Rural Workforce • Improving Quality of Life Overview

    Federal Agency Name: USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant.

    Announcement Type: Initial Notice.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.871.

    Dates: Application Deadline. You must submit your complete application by July 30, 2018, or it will not be considered for funding. Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time, July 24, 2018, or it will not be considered for funding.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0052.

    A. Program Description

    The SDGG program is authorized by section 310B(e)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)(11)). The primary objective of the SDGG program is to provide Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Grants are available for Cooperative Development Centers, individual Cooperatives, or Groups of Cooperatives that serve Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and where a majority of their board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.

    Definitions

    The definitions you need to understand are as follows:

    Agency—Rural Business-Cooperative Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development or a successor agency.

    Conflict of Interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. Examples of conflicts of interest include using grant funds to pay a member of the applicant's board of directors to provide proposed Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups; pay a cooperative member to provide proposed Technical Assistance to other members of the same cooperative; and pay an immediate family member of the applicant to provide proposed Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.

    Cooperative—A business or organization owned by and operated for the benefit of those using its services and where a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Profits and earnings generated by the cooperative are distributed among the members, also known as user-owners.

    Cooperative Development Center—A nonprofit corporation or institution of higher education operated by the grantee for cooperative or business development and where a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. It may or may not be an independent legal entity separate from the grantee.

    Feasibility Study—An analysis of the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of a proposed Project.

    Group of Cooperatives—A group of Cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and where a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.

    Operating Cost—The day-to-day expenses of running a business; for example: utilities, rent on the office space a business occupies, salaries, depreciation, marketing and advertising, and other basic overhead items.

    Participant Support Costs—Direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences, or training projects.

    Project—Includes all activities to be funded by the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant.

    Rural and Rural Area—Any area of a State:

    (1) Not in a city or town that has a population of more than 50,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial census of the United States; and

    (2) The contiguous and adjacent urbanized area,

    (3) Urbanized areas that are rural in character as defined by 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13).

    (4) For the purposes of this definition, cities and towns are incorporated population centers with definite boundaries, local self-government, and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the State. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, within the areas of the County of Honolulu, Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Secretary may designate any part of the areas as a rural area if the Secretary determines that the part is not urban in character, other than any area included in the Honolulu census designated place (CDP) or the San Juan CDP.

    Rural Development—A mission area within USDA consisting of the Office of Under Secretary for Rural Development, Rural Business-Cooperative Services, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Utilities Service and any successors.

    Socially-Disadvantaged Group—A group whose members have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.

    State—Includes each of the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, as may be determined by the Secretary to be feasible, appropriate and lawful, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

    Technical Assistance—An advisory service performed for the purpose of assisting Cooperatives or groups that want to form Cooperatives such as market research, product and/or service improvement, legal advice and assistance, Feasibility Study, business planning, marketing plan development, and training.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Award: Competitive Grant.

    Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2018.

    Total Funding: $3,000,000.

    Maximum Award: $175,000.

    Project Period: 1 year.

    Anticipated Award Date: September 28, 2018.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Applicants must meet all the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.

    1. Eligible Applicants. Grants may be made to individual Cooperatives, Groups of Cooperatives, and Cooperative Development Centers that serve Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and where a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. You must be able to verify your legal structure in the State or the tribe under which you are incorporated. Grants may not be made to public bodies or to individuals. Your application must demonstrate that you meet all definition requirements for one of the three eligible applicant types as defined above under Program Description. Federally-recognized tribes have a government-to-government relationship with the United States and may have difficulty meeting the definition requirements. Therefore, it is recommended that they utilize a separate entity, such as a tribally-owned business, tribal authority, tribal non-profit, tribal College or University to apply for SDGG funding that would provide Technical Assistance to members of the tribe. This separate tribal entity must also demonstrate that it meets all definition requirements for one of the three eligible applicant types as defined above.

    (a) An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.

    (b) Any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. Institutions of Higher Education are not required to submit this form.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching. No matching funds are required.

    3. Other Eligibility Requirements.

    Use of Funds: Your application must propose Technical Assistance that will benefit Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Cooperatives that are recipients of Technical Assistance must have a membership that consists of a majority of members from Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Please review section D(6) of this Notice, “Funding Restrictions,” carefully.

    Project Eligibility: The proposed Project must only serve members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups in Rural Areas.

    Grant Period Eligibility: Your application must include a grant period of one-year or less or it will not be considered for funding. The proposed time frame should begin no earlier than October 1, 2018, and end no later than December 31, 2019. Applications that request funds for a time period ending after December 31, 2019, will not be considered for funding. You should note that the anticipated award date is September 28, 2018. Projects must be completed within the 12-months or less time frame.

    The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. However, you may not have more than one SDGG during the same grant period. If you extend the period of performance for your current award, you may be deemed ineligible to receive a SDGG in the next grant cycle. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.

    Satisfactory performance eligibility: If you have an existing SDGG award, you must be performing satisfactorily to be considered eligible for a new SDGG award. Satisfactory performance includes being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports as prescribed in the grant award, and current on tasks and timeframes for utilizing grant and matching funds as approved in the work plan and budget. If you have any unspent grant funds on SDGG awards prior to FY 2017, your application will not be considered for funding. If your FY 2017 award has unspent funds of 50 percent or more than what your approved work plan and budget projected at the time of evaluation of your FY 2018 application, your FY 2018 application may not be considered for funding. The Agency will verify the performance status of FY 2017 awards and make a determination after the FY 2018 application period closes.

    Completeness Eligibility: Your application must provide all the information requested in Section D(2) of this Notice. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible.

    Duplication of current services. Your application must demonstrate that you are providing services to new customers or new services to current customers. If your work plan and budget is duplicative of your existing award, your application will not be considered for funding. If your work plan and budget is duplicative of a previous or existing RCDG and/or SDGG award, your application will not be considered for funding.

    Multiple Grant Eligibility: You may only submit one SDGG grant application each funding cycle.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Application Package

    The application template for applying on paper for this funding opportunity is located at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/socially-disadvantaged-groups-grant. Use of the application template is strongly recommended to assist you with the application process. You may also contact your USDA RD State Office for more information. Contact information for State Offices is located at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. You may also obtain an application package by calling 202-690-1374.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission

    You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. Your application must contain all required information. If you submit in paper form, any forms requiring signatures must include an original signature.

    To apply electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. Please note that we cannot accept emailed or faxed applications.

    You can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, or the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program.

    When you enter the Grants.gov website, you will find information about applying electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    To use Grants.gov, you must already have a DUNS number and you must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.

    You must submit all application documents electronically through Grants.gov. Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded.

    After applying electronically through Grants.gov, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.

    If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    Your application must also contain the following required forms and proposal elements:

    (a) Standard Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to include your DUNS number and SAM Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date. If you do not include your DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.

    (b) Form SF-424A, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.

    (c) Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.

    (d) Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities. Institutions of higher education are not required to submit this form.

    (e) You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. You must also certify that you are not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.

    (f) Table of Contents. Your application must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC). The TOC must include page numbers for each part of the application. Page numbers should begin immediately following the TOC.

    (g) Executive Summary. A summary of the proposal, not to exceed one page, must briefly describe the Project, tasks to be completed, and other relevant information that provides a general overview of the Project.

    (h) Eligibility Discussion. A detailed discussion, not to exceed four pages, must describe how you meet the following requirements:

    (1) Applicant Eligibility. You must describe how you meet the definition of a Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives, or Cooperative Development Center. Your application must show that your individual Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives or Cooperative Development Center serves Socially-Disadvantaged Groups and a majority of the board of directors or governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Your application must include a list of your board of directors/governing board and the percentage of board of directors/governing board that are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. Note: Your application will not be considered for funding if you fail to show that a majority of your board of directors/governing board is comprised of individuals who are members of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.

    You must verify your incorporation and status in the State that you have applied by providing the State's or Tribe's Certificate of Good Standing and your Articles of Incorporation. You may also submit your Bylaws if they provide additional information not included in your Articles of Incorporation that will help verify your legal status. If applying as an institution of higher education, documentation verifying your legal status is not required; however, you must demonstrate that you qualify as an Institution of Higher Education as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001. You must apply as only one type of applicant. The requested verification documents should be included in Appendix A of your application. If they are not included, your application will not be considered for funding.

    (2) Use of Funds. You must provide a brief discussion on how the proposed Project activities meet the definition of Technical Assistance and identify the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups that will be assisted.

    (3) Project Area. You must provide specific information that details the location of the Project area and explain how the area meets the definition of “Rural Area.”

    (4) Grant Period. You must provide a time frame for the proposed Project and discuss how the Project will be completed within that time frame. You must have a time frame of one year or less.

    (5) Indirect Costs. Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.

    (i) Scoring Criteria. Each of the scoring criteria in this Notice must be addressed in narrative form, with a maximum of three pages for each individual scoring criterion, unless otherwise specified. Failure to address each scoring criteria will result in the application being determined ineligible.

    (j) The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the SDGG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures as part of your narrative:

    • Number of cooperatives assisted; and

    • Number of socially disadvantaged groups assisted.

    3. DUNS Number and SM

    To be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d)), you are required to:

    (a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;

    (b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. You must provide your SAM CAGE Code and expiration date or evidence that you have begun the SAM registration process at time of application; and

    (c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

    If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F. 2 for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.

    4. Submission Dates and Times

    Application Deadline Date: July 30, 2018.

    Explanation of Deadlines: Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight by July 30, 2018. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications are not eligible for funding and will not be evaluated further.

    Electronic applications must be RECEIVED by http://www.grants.gov by midnight Eastern Time July 24, 2018, to be eligible for funding. Please review the Grants.gov website at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you can meet the electronic application deadline. Grants.gov will not accept applications submitted after the deadline.

    5. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SPOC-Feb.-2018.pdf.

    If your State has a SPOC, you may submit a copy of the application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to your State Office for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established a SPOC, or if you do not want to submit a copy of the application, our State Offices will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

    6. Funding Restrictions

    Grant funds must be used for Technical Assistance. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to:

    (a) Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;

    (b) Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including processing equipment;

    (c) Purchase vehicles, including boats;

    (d) Pay for the preparation of the grant application;

    (e) Pay expenses not directly related to the funded Project;

    (f) Fund political or lobbying activities;

    (g) To fund any activities considered unallowable by the applicable grant cost principles, including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and the Federal Acquisition Regulation;

    (h) Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility;

    (i) Fund any direct expenses for the production of any commodity or product to which value will be added, including seed, rootstock, labor for harvesting the crop, and delivery of the commodity to a processing facility;

    (j) Fund research and development;

    (k) Purchase land;

    (l) Duplicate current activities or activities paid for by other Federal grant programs;

    (m) Pay costs of the Project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;

    (n) Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise that does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;

    (o) Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

    (p) Pay any Operating Costs of the Cooperative, Group of Cooperatives, or Cooperative Development Center not directly related to the Project;

    (q) Pay expenses for applicant employee training or professional development not directly related to the Project; or

    (r) Pay for any goods or services from a person who has a Conflict of Interest with the grantee.

    (s) Pay for Technical Assistance provided to a Cooperative that does not have a membership that consists of a majority of members from Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.

    In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:

    • Requests more than the maximum grant amount;

    • Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total grant funds requested; or

    • Proposes Participant Support Costs that equal more than 10 percent of total grant funds requested.

    We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total grant funds requested, if it is determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.

    7. Other Submission Requirements

    (a) You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in paper or electronically. Applications submitted in paper must be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. To apply electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. A password is not required to access the website.

    (b) National Environmental Policy Act. This Notice has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” We have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required because the issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for processing, approving, and implementing the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation found at 7 CFR 1970.53(f). We have determined that this Notice does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.

    (c) Civil Rights Compliance Requirements. All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    E. Application Review Information

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order.

    Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.

    1. Scoring Criteria

    All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual scoring criterion. SDGG is a competitive program, so you will receive scores based on the quality of your responses. Simply addressing the criteria will not guarantee higher scores. The total points possible for the criteria are 105.

    (a) Technical Assistance (maximum score of 25 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application to determine your ability to assess the needs of and provide effective Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups. You must discuss the:

    (1) Needs of the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups to be assisted and explain how those needs were determined,

    (2) Proposed Technical Assistance to be provided to the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups; and

    (3) Expected outcomes of the proposed Technical Assistance, including how Socially-Disadvantaged Groups will benefit from participating in the Project. You will score higher on this criterion if you provide examples of past projects that demonstrate successful outcomes in identifying specific needs and providing Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups.

    (b) Experience (maximum score of 25 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your experience, commitment and availability for identified staff or consultants in providing Technical Assistance, as defined in this Notice. You must describe the Technical Assistance experience for each identified staff member or consultant, as well as years of experience in providing that assistance. You must also discuss the commitment and the availability of identified staff, consultants, or other professionals to be hired for the project—especially those who may be consulting on multiple SDGG/RCDG projects. If staff or consultants have not been selected at the time of application, you must provide specific descriptions of the qualifications required for the positions to be filled. In addition, resumes for each individual staff member or consultant must be included as an attachment in Appendix B. The attachments will not count toward the maximum page total. We will compare the described experience in this section and in the resumes to the work plan to determine relevance of the experience. Applications that do not include the attached resumes will not be considered for funding.

    Applications that demonstrate strong credentials, education, capabilities, experience and availability of Project personnel that will contribute to a high likelihood of Project success will receive more points than those that demonstrate less potential for success in these areas.

    Points will be awarded as follows:

    (i) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.

    (ii) 1-9 points will be awarded if qualifications and experience of some, but not all, staff is addressed and/or if necessary qualifications of unfilled positions are not provided.

    (iii) 10-14 points will be awarded if (ii) is met, plus all project personnel are identified but do not demonstrate qualifications or experience relevant to the project.

    (iv) 15-19 will be awarded if (ii) and (iii) are met, plus most, but not all, key personnel demonstrate strong credentials and/or experience, and availability indicating a reasonable likelihood of success.

    (v) 20-25 points will be awarded if (ii)-(iv) are met, plus all personnel demonstrate strong, relevant credentials or experience, and availability indicating a high likelihood of project success.

    (c) Commitment (maximum of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment to providing Technical Assistance to Socially-Disadvantaged Groups in Rural Areas. You must list the number and location of Socially-Disadvantaged Groups that will directly benefit from the assistance provided. You must also define and describe the underserved and economically distressed areas within your service area and provide current and relevant statistics that support your description of the service area. Projects located in persistent poverty counties as defined by USDA's Economic Research Service will score higher on this factor.

    (d) Work Plan/Budget (maximum of 25 points)—Six-page limit. Your work plan must provide specific and detailed descriptions of the tasks and the key project personnel that will accomplish the project's goals. Budget will be reviewed for completeness. You must list what tasks are to be done, when it will be done, who will do it, and how much it will cost. Reviewers must be able to understand what is being proposed and how the grant funds will be spent. The budget must be a detailed breakdown of estimated costs. These costs should be allocated to each of the tasks to be undertaken.

    A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. Clear, logical, realistic, and efficient plans that allocate costs to specific tasks using applicable budget object class categories provided on the Form SF-424A will result in a higher score. You must discuss at a minimum:

    (i) Specific tasks to be completed using grant funds;

    (ii) How customers will be identified;

    (iii) Key personnel; and

    (iv) The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall project objectives. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations, such as discussion of evaluation methods per task.

    (e) Local support (maximum of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application for local support of the Technical Assistance activities. Your discussion on local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area or with tribal, State and local government institutions. You will score higher if you demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and other developmental organizations. You may also submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application to verify your discussion.

    Points will be awarded as follows:

    (i) 0 points are awarded if you do not adequately address this criterion.

    (ii) 1-5 points are awarded if you demonstrate support from potential beneficiaries and other developmental organizations in your discussion but do not provide letters of support.

    (iii) Additional 1 point is awarded if you provide 2-3 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

    (iv) Additional 2 points are awarded if you provide 4-5 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

    (v) Additional 3 points are awarded if you provide 6-7 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

    (vi) Additional 4 points are awarded if you provide 8-9 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

    (vii) Additional 5 points are awarded if you provide 10 support letters that show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

    You may submit a maximum of 10 letters of support. Support letters should come from potential beneficiaries and other local organizations. Letters received from Congressional members and Technical Assistance providers will not be included in the count of support letters received. Additionally, identical form letters signed by multiple potential beneficiaries and/or local organizations will not be included in the count of support letters received. Support letters should be included as an attachment to the application in Appendix C and will not count against the maximum page total. Additional letters from industry groups, commodity groups, Congressional members, and similar organizations should be referenced, but not included in the application package. When referencing these letters, provide the name of the organization, date of the letter, the nature of the support, and the name and title of the person signing the letter.

    (f) Administrator Discretionary Points (maximum of 10 points). The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 points to an eligible applicant who has never previously been awarded an SDGG grant; and whose workplan and budget seeks to help rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Eligible applicants who want to be considered for discretionary points must discuss how their workplan and budget supports one or more of the five following key strategies:

    Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America;

    Improving Quality of Life;

    Supporting a Rural Workforce;

    Harnessing Technological Innovation; and

    Economic Development.

    2. Review and Selection Process

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. The review panel will convene to reach a consensus on the scores for each of the eligible applications. The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criterion (f) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 105. Applications will be funded in highest ranking order until the funding limitation has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is ranked and not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notices

    If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.

    If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available FY 2018 funding.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 2 CFR parts 200, 215, 400, 415, 417, 418, and 421. All recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (See 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act reporting requirements (See 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). These regulations may be obtained at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.

    The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

    • Agency approved Grant Agreement.

    • Letter of Conditions.

    • Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    • Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

    • Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”

    • Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.

    • Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” By signing Form 400-4, Assurance Agreement recipients affirm that they will operate the program free from discrimination. The recipient will maintain the race and ethnic data on the board members and beneficiaries of the program. The Recipient will provide alternative forms of communication to persons with limited English proficiency. The Agency will conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews on recipients to identify the collection of racial and ethnic data on Program beneficiaries. In addition, the Compliance review will ensure that equal access to the Program benefits and activities are provided for persons with disabilities and language barriers.

    • SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

    3. Reporting

    After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:

    a. A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;

    b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;

    c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and

    d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.

    e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.

    f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.

    G. Agency Contacts

    For general questions about this announcement and for program Technical Assistance, please contact the appropriate State Office as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. You may also contact National Office staff: Susan Horst, SDGG Program Lead, [email protected], or call 202-690-1374.

    H. Other Information Non Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; fax: (202) 690-7442; or email: [email protected]

    Dated: May 22, 2018. Bette B. Brand, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11481 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for Rural Cooperative Development Grants AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program. The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT).

    The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Eligible applicants include a non-profit corporation or an institution of higher education.

    DATES:

    Completed applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:

    Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.

    Electronic applications must be received by July 24, 2018, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov website at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp. For instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the electronic application deadline. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.

    ADDRESSES:

    You should contact a USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) if you have questions. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for State Offices can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the RCDG funding announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. If you are headquartered in Washington, DC please contact the Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, at (202) 690-1374 for guidance on where to submit your application.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop-3253, Room 4208-South, Washington, DC 20250-3253, (202) 690-1374.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Preface

    The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America. www.usda.gov/ruralprosperity. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:

    • Achieving e-Connectivity for rural America • Developing the Rural Economy • Harnessing Technological Innovation • Supporting a Rural Workforce • Improving Quality of Life Overview

    Federal Agency: Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Cooperative Development Grants.

    Announcement Type: Initial Notice.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.771.

    Date: Application Deadline. Paper applications must be postmarked, mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018, or it will not be considered for funding. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time July 24, 2018, or it will not be considered for funding.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0006.

    A. Program Description

    The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)) as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79). You are required to comply with the regulations for this program published at 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, which are incorporated by reference in this Notice. Therefore, you should become familiar with these regulations. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum award amount per grant is $200,000. Grants are available for non-profit corporations or higher education institutions only. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development. Grant funds may be used to pay for 95 percent of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development, when the applicant is a 1994 Institution as defined by 7 U.S.C. 301. The 1994 Institutions are commonly known as Tribal Land Grant Institutions. Centers may have the expertise on staff or they can contract out for the expertise, to assist individuals or entities in the startup, expansion or operational improvement of rural businesses, especially cooperative or mutually-owned businesses.

    Definitions

    The terms you need to understand are defined and published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 7 CFR 4284.504. In addition, the terms “rural” and “rural area,” defined at section 343(a)(13) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)), are incorporated by reference, and will be used for this program instead of those terms currently published at 7 CFR 4284.3. The term “you” referenced throughout this Notice should be understood to mean “you” the applicant. Finally, there has been some confusion on the Agency's meaning of the terms “conflict of interest” and “mutually-owned business,” because they are not defined in the CONACT or in the regulations used for the program. Therefore, the terms are clarified and should be understood as follows.

    Conflict of interest—A situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the grantee's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

    Mutually-owned business—An organization owned and governed by members who either are its consumers, producers, employees, or suppliers.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Award: Competitive Grant.

    Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2018.

    Total Funding: $5,800,000

    Maximum Award: $200,000.

    Anticipated Award Date: September 28, 2018.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.

    1. Eligible Applicants

    You must be a nonprofit corporation or an institution of higher education to apply for this program. Public bodies and individuals cannot apply for this program. See 7 CFR 4284.507. You must also meet the following requirements:

    a. An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. See 7 CFR 4284.6. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.

    b. Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. Institutions of Higher Education are not required to submit this form.

    c. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6.a. and b. Inclusion of funding restrictions outlined in Section D.6.a. and b. preclude the Agency from making a federal award.

    d. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application is not complete in accordance with the requirements stated in Section C.3.e.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    Your matching funds requirement is 25 percent of the total project cost (5 percent for 1994 Institutions). See 7 CFR 4284.508. When you calculate your matching funds requirement, please round up or down to whole dollars as appropriate. An example of how to calculate your matching funds is as follows:

    a. Take the amount of grant funds you are requesting and divide it by .75. This will give you your total project cost.

    Example: $200,000 (grant amount)/.75 (percentage for use of grant funds) = $266,667 (total project cost).

    b. Subtract the amount of grant funds you are requesting from your total project cost. This will give you your matching funds requirement.

    Example: $266,667 (total project cost) − $200,000 (grant amount) = $66,667 (matching funds requirement).

    c. A quick way to double check that you have the correct amount of matching funds is to take your total project cost and multiply it by .25.

    Example: $266,667 (total project cost) × .25 (maximum percentage of matching funds requirement) = $66,667 (matching funds requirement).

    You must verify that all matching funds are available during the grant period and provide this documentation with your application in accordance with requirements identified in Section D.2.e.8. If you are awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of matching funds.

    Other rules for matching funds that you must follow are listed below.

    • They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.

    • They must be from eligible sources.

    • They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.

    • They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.

    • They cannot include board/advisory council members' time.

    • They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.

    • They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside the grant period.

    • They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.

    • They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RCDG program.

    • They cannot include any project costs that are unallowable under the applicable grant “Cost Principles,” including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulation.

    • They can include loan funds from a Federal source.

    • They can include travel and incidentals for board/advisory council members if you have established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. You must include an explanation of this policy in your application or the contributions will not be considered as eligible matching funds.

    • You must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a matching funds requirement.

    • In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by you cannot be provided for the direct benefit of their own projects as USDA Rural Development considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    3. Other Eligibility Requirements a. Purpose Eligibility

    Your application must propose the establishment or continuation of a cooperative development center concept. You must use project funds, including grant and matching funds for eligible purposes only (see 7 CFR 4284.508). In addition, project funds may be used for programs providing for the coordination of services and sharing of information among the centers (see 7 U.S.C 1932(e) (4) (C) (vi)).

    b. Project Eligibility

    All project activities must be for the benefit of a rural area.

    c. Multiple Application Eligibility

    Only one application can be submitted per applicant. If two applications are submitted (regardless of the applicant name) that include the same Executive Director and/or advisory boards or committees of an existing center, both applications will be determined not eligible for funding.

    d. Grant Period

    Your application must include a one-year grant period, or it will not be considered for funding. The grant period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2018, and no later than January 1, 2019. Applications that request funds for a time period ending after December 31, 2019, will not be considered for funding. Projects must be completed within a one-year timeframe. Prior approval is needed from the Agency if you are awarded a grant and desire the grant period to begin earlier or later than previously discussed.

    The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. However, you may not have more than one active RCDG during the same grant period. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.

    e. Completeness

    Your application will not be considered for funding if it fails to meet an eligibility criterion by time of application deadline and does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring. You must include all of the forms and proposal elements as discussed in the regulation and as clarified further in this Notice. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed by the Agency. For more information on what is required for an application, see 7 CFR 4284.510.

    f. Satisfactory Performance

    You must be performing satisfactorily on any outstanding RCDG award to be considered eligible for a new award. Satisfactory performance includes being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports as prescribed in the grant award, and current on tasks and timeframes for utilizing grant and matching funds as approved in the work plan and budget. If you have any unspent grant funds on RCDG awards prior to fiscal year 2017, your application will not be considered for funding. If your fiscal year 2017 award has unspent funds of 50 percent or more than what your approved work plan and budget projected, at the time that your fiscal year 2018 application is being evaluated, your application will not be considered for funding. The Agency will verify the performance status of FY 2017 awards and make a determination after the FY 2018 application period closes.

    g. Duplication of Current Services

    Your application must demonstrate that you are providing services to new customers or new services to current customers. If your work plan and budget is duplicative of your existing award, your application will not be considered for funding. If your workplan and budget is duplicative of a previous or existing RCDG and/or Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) award, your application will not be considered for funding. The Agency will make this determination.

    h. Indirect Costs

    Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address to Request Application Package

    For further information, you should contact your State Office at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. Program materials may also be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. You may also obtain a copy by calling 202-690-1374.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission

    You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. If you submit in paper form, any forms requiring signatures must include an original signature.

    a. Electronic Submission

    To apply electronically, you must use the Grants.gov website at http://www.Grants.gov. You may not apply electronically in any way other than through Grants.gov.

    You can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, or the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program.

    When you enter the Grants.gov website, you will find information about applying electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    To use Grants.gov, you must already have a DUNS number and you must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.

    You must submit all your application documents electronically through Grants.gov. Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded.

    After electronically applying through Grants.gov, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.

    b. Paper Submission

    If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. An optional-use Agency application template is available online at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

    c. Supplemental Information

    Your application must contain all the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.510 and as otherwise clarified in this Notice. Specifically, your application must include: (1) The required forms as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(b) and (2) the required proposal elements as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(c). If your application is incomplete, it is ineligible to compete for funds. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the application template found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

    d. Clarifications on Forms

    • Standard Form (SF) 424—Your DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” In addition, you should provide the DUNS number and the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date under the applicant eligibility discussion in your proposal narrative. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.

    • Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities. Institutions of Higher Education are not required to submit this form.

    • You can voluntarily fill out and submit the “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” as part of your application if you are a nonprofit organization.

    e. Clarifications on Proposal Elements

    1. You must include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information on the Title Page.

    2. You must include a Table of Contents with page numbers for each component of the application to facilitate review.

    3. Your Executive Summary must include the items in 7 CFR 4284.510(c) (3), and discuss the percentage of work that will be performed among organizational staff, consultants, or other contractors. It should not exceed two pages.

    4. Your Eligibility Discussion must not exceed two pages and cover how you meet the eligibility requirements for applicant, matching funds, and other eligibility requirements.

    5. Your Proposal Narrative must not exceed 40 pages and should describe the essential aspects of the project.

    i. You are only required to have one title page for the proposal.

    ii. If you list the evaluation criteria on the Table of Contents and specifically and individually address each criterion in narrative form, then it is not necessary for you to include an Information Sheet. Otherwise, the Information Sheet is required under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(ii).

    iii. You must include the following under Goals of the Project:

    A. A statement that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;

    B. A statement that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;

    C. A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services. Expected economic impacts should be tied to tasks included in the work plan and budget; and

    D. A statement that the Center, in carrying out its activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.

    iv. The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the RCDG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures.

    • Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.

    • Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.

    • Number of cooperatives assisted.

    • Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.

    • Number of cooperatives incorporated.

    • Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.

    • Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.

    • Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

    • Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

    It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When you calculate jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by your organization because of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by cooperative businesses or other businesses as a result of assistance from your organization. When you calculate jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if your organization did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from your organization.

    v. You can also suggest additional performance elements for example where job creation or jobs saved may not be a relevant indicator (e.g. housing). These additional criteria should be specific, measurable performance elements that could be included in an award document.

    vi. You must describe in the application how you will undertake to do each of the following. We would prefer if you described these undertakings within proposal evaluation criteria to reduce duplication in your application. The specific proposal evaluation criterion where you should address each undertaking is noted below.

    A. Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sector (should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion j., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.j.);

    B. Make arrangements for the Center's activities to be monitored and evaluated (should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number h. utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h.); and

    C. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee in accordance with 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F. This should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number a., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.a.

    vii. You should present the Work Plan and Budget proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number h., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h. of this Notice to reduce duplication in your application.

    viii. You should present the Delivery of Cooperative development assistance proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number b., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.b. of this Notice.

    ix. You should present the Qualifications of Personnel proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number i., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.i. of this Notice.

    x. You should present the Local Support and Future Support proposal elements under proposal evaluation criterion number j., utilizing the requirements of Section E.1.j. of this Notice.

    xi. Your application will not be considered for funding if you do not address all the proposal evaluation criteria. See Section E.1. of this Notice for a description of the proposal evaluation criteria.

    xii. Only appendices A-C will be considered when evaluating your application. You must not include resumes of staff or consultants in the application.

    6. You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.

    7. You must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds are pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, not less than the required amount of matching funds will be expended. Please note that this Certification is a separate requirement from the Verification of Matching Funds requirement. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds shall be pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, at least 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of matching funds will be expended.” A separate signature is not required.

    8. You must provide documentation in your application to verify all of your proposed matching funds. The documentation must be included in Appendix A of your application and will not count towards the 40-page limitation. Template letters are available for each type of matching funds contribution at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program.

    a. If matching funds are to be provided in cash, you must meet the following requirements.

    You: The application must include a statement verifying (1) the amount of the cash and (2) the source of the cash. You may also provide a bank statement dated 30 days or less from the application deadline date to verify your cash match.

    Third-party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) how much cash will be donated and (2) that it will be available corresponding to the proposed grant period or donated on a specific date within the grant period.

    b. If matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind donation, you must meet the following requirements.

    You: The application must include a signed letter from you or your authorized representative verifying (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (i.e., corresponding to the proposed grant period or to specific dates within the grant period), and (3) the value of the goods and/or services. Please note that most applicant contributions for the RCDG program are considered applicant cash match in accordance with this Notice. If you are unsure, please contact your State Office because identifying your matching funds improperly can affect your scoring.

    Third-Party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) the nature of the goods and/or services to be donated and how they will be used, (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (i.e., corresponding to the proposed grant period or to specific dates within the grant period), and (3) the value of the goods and/or services.

    To ensure that you are identifying and verifying your matching funds appropriately, please note the following:

    • If you are paying for goods and/or services as part of the matching funds requirement, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and you must verify it as such. Universities must verify the goods and services they are providing to the project as a cash match and the verification must be approved by the appropriate approval official (i.e., sponsored programs office or equivalent).

    • If you have already received cash from a third-party (i.e., Foundation) before the start of your proposed grant period, you must verify this as your own cash match and not as a third-party cash match. If you are receiving cash from a third-party during the grant period, then you must be verifying the cash as a third-party cash match.

    • Board resolutions for a cash match must be approved at the time of application.

    • You can only consider goods or services for which no expenditure is made as an in-kind contribution.

    • If a non-profit or another organization contributes the services of affiliated volunteers, they must follow the third-party, in-kind donation verification requirement for each individual volunteer.

    • Expected program income may not be used to fulfill your matching funds requirement at the time you submit your application. However, if you have a contract to provide services in place at the time you submit your application, you can verify the amount of the contract as a cash match.

    • The valuation processes you use for in-kind contributions does not need to be included in your application, but you must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived if you are awarded a grant. The grant award may be withdrawn, or the amount of the grant reduced if you cannot demonstrate how the valuation was derived.

    Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in Section F, Federal Award Administration.

    3. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) and System for Awards Management (SAM)

    To be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:

    (a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;

    (b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. You must provide your SAM CAGE Code and expiration date or evidence that you have begun the SAM registration process at time of application, and

    (c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

    If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F.2. for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.

    4. Submission Dates and Times

    Application Deadline Date: July 30, 2018.

    Explanation of Deadlines: Complete applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:

    Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than July 30, 2018, to be eligible for grant funding. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications will automatically be deemed ineligible.

    Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern Time July 24, 2018, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the Grants.gov website at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you can meet the electronic application deadline. Grants.gov will not accept applications submitted after the deadline.

    5. Intergovernmental Review of Applications

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SPOC-Feb.-2018.pdf. If your State has an SPOC, you may submit a copy of the application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to your State Office for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established an SPOC, or if you do not want to submit a copy of the application, our State Offices will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

    6. Funding Restrictions

    a. Project funds, including grant and matching funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes (see 7 CFR 4284.10). Also, you shall not use project funds for the following:

    • To purchase, rent, or install laboratory equipment or processing machinery;

    • To pay for the operating costs of any entity receiving assistance from the Center;

    • To pay costs of the project where a conflict of interest exists;

    • To fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR part 200; or

    • To fund any activities considered unallowable by 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.

    b. In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:

    • Focuses assistance on only one cooperative or mutually-owned business;

    • Requests more than the maximum grant amount; or

    • Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total project costs. The ineligible costs will NOT be removed at this stage to proceed with application processing. For purposes of this determination, the grant amount requested plus the matching funds amount constitutes the total project costs.

    We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs, if the remaining costs are determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award, or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.

    7. Other Submission Requirements

    a. You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in paper or electronically. Applications submitted on paper must be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. To submit an application electronically, you must follow the instruction for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. A password is not required to access the website.

    b. National Environmental Policy Act.

    All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. However, technical assistance awards under this Notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), and usually do not require any additional documentation.

    The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.

    c. Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.

    All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

    E. Application Review Information

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. Applications will be funded in rank order until the funding limitation has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.

    1. Scoring Criteria

    Scoring criteria will follow criteria published at 7 CFR 4284.513 as supplemented below including any amendments made by the Section 6013 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234), which is incorporated by reference in this Notice. The regulatory and statutory criteria are clarified and supplemented below. You should also include information as described in Section D.2.e.5.vi. if you choose to address these items under the scoring criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum amount of points available is 110. Newly established or proposed Centers that do not yet have a track record on which to evaluate the following criteria should refer to the expertise and track records of staff or consultants expected to perform tasks related to the respective criteria. Proposed or newly established Centers must be organized well-enough at time of application to address its capabilities for meeting these criteria.

    a. Administrative capabilities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated track record in carrying out activities in support of development assistance to cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. At a minimum, you must discuss the following administrative capabilities:

    1. Financial systems and audit controls;

    2. Personnel and program administration performance measures;

    3. Clear written rules of governance; and

    4. Experience administering Federal grant funding no later than the last 5 years, including but not limited to past RCDGs. Please list the name of the Federal grant program(s), the amount(s), and the date(s) of funding received.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate that the Center has independent governance. For applicants that are universities or parent organizations, you should demonstrate that there is a separate board of directors for the Center.

    b. Technical assistance and other services (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated expertise no later than the last 5 years in providing technical assistance and accomplishing effective outcomes in rural areas to promote and assist the development of cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. You must discuss at least:

    1. Your potential for delivering effective technical assistance;

    2. The types of assistance provided;

    3. The expected effects of that assistance;

    4. The sustainability of organizations receiving the assistance; and

    5. The transferability of your cooperative development strategies and focus to other areas of the U.S.

    A chart or table showing the outcomes of your demonstrated expertise based upon the performance elements listed in Section D.2.e.5.iv. or as identified in your award document on previous RCDG awards. At a minimum, please provide information for FY 2014-FY 2016 awards. We prefer that you provide one chart or table separating out award years. The intention here is for you to provide actual performance numbers based upon award years (fiscal year) even though your grant period for the award was for the next calendar or fiscal year. Please provide a narrative explanation if you have not received a RCDG award.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you provide more than 3 years of outcomes and can demonstrate that the organizations you assisted within the last 5 years are sustainable. Additional outcome information should be provided on RCDG grants awarded before FY 2014. Please describe specific project(s) when addressing 1-5 of this paragraph. To reduce duplication, descriptions of specific projects and their impacts, outcomes and roles can be discussed once under criterion b or c. However, you must cross-reference the information under the other criterion.

    c. Economic development (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated ability to facilitate:

    1. Establishment of cooperatives or mutually owned businesses;

    2. New cooperative approaches (i.e., organizing cooperatives among underserved individuals or communities; an innovative market approach; a type of cooperative currently not in your service area; a new cooperative structure; novel ways to raise member equity or community capitalization; conversion of an existing business to cooperative ownership); and

    3. Retention of businesses, generation of employment opportunities or other factors, as applicable, that will otherwise improve the economic conditions of rural areas.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you provide economic measurements showing the impacts of your past development projects no later than 5 years old and identify your role in the economic development outcomes.

    d. Past performance in establishing legal business entities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated past performance in establishing legal cooperative business entities and other legal business entities during January 1, 2015-December 31, 2017. Provide the name of the organization(s) established, the date of formation and your role in assisting with the incorporation(s) under this criterion. In addition, documentation verifying the establishment of legal business entities must be included in Appendix C of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. The documentation must include proof that organizational documents were filed with the Secretary of State's Office (i.e., Certificate of Incorporation or information from the State's official website naming the entity established and the date of establishment); or if the business entity is not required to register with the Secretary of State, a certification from the business entity that a legal business entity has been established and when. Please note that you are not required to submit articles of incorporation to receive points under this criterion. You will score higher on this criterion if you have established legal cooperative businesses. If your State does not incorporate cooperative business entities, please describe how the established business entity operates like a cooperative.

    e. Networking and regional focus (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated commitment to:

    1. Networking with other cooperative development centers, and other organizations involved in rural economic development efforts, and

    2. Developing multi-organization and multi-State approaches to addressing the economic development and cooperative needs of rural areas.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate the outcomes of your multi-organizational and multi-State approaches. Please describe the project(s), partners and the outcome(s) that resulted from the approach.

    f. Commitment (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to under-served and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States. You will score higher on this criterion if you define and describe the underserved and economically distressed areas within your service area, provide economic statistics, and identify past or current projects within or affecting these areas, as appropriate.

    g. Matching Funds (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment for the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching funds requirement. A chart or table should be provided to describe all matching funds being committed to the project. However, formal documentation to verify all the matching funds must be included in Appendix A of your application. You will be scored on how you identify your matching funds.

    1. If you met the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:

    • In-kind only—1 point,

    • Mix of in-kind and cash—3-4 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or

    • Cash only—5 points.

    2. If you exceeded the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:

    • In-kind only—2 points,

    • Mix of in-kind and cash—6-7 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or

    • Cash only—10 points.

    h. Work Plan/Budget (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative and business development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.

    You must discuss at a minimum:

    1. Specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and matching funds;

    2. How customers will be identified;

    3. Key personnel; and

    4. The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you present a clear, logical, realistic, and efficient work plan and budget.

    i. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application to determine if the personnel expected to perform key tasks have a track record of:

    1. Positive solutions for complex cooperative development and/or marketing problems; or

    2. A successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to your success as determined by the tasks identified in the work plan; and

    3. Whether the personnel expected to perform the tasks are full/part-time employees of your organization or are contract personnel.

    You will score higher on this criterion if you demonstrate commitment and availability of qualified personnel expected to perform the tasks.

    j. Local and Future Support (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application for local and future support. Support should be discussed directly within the response to this criterion.

    1. Discussion on local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area or with state and local government institutions. You will score higher if you demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations. You may also submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application to verify your discussion. These letters should be included in Appendix B of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative.

    2. Discussion on future support will include your vision for funding operations in future years. You should document:

    (i) New and existing funding sources that support your goals;

    (ii) Alternative funding sources that reduce reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and

    (iii) The use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. Please discuss your strategy for building in-house technical assistance capacity.

    You will score higher if you can demonstrate that your future support will result in long-term sustainability of the Center.

    k. Administrator Discretionary Points (maximum of 10 points). The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 points to an eligible non-profit corporation or institution of higher education who has never previously been awarded an RCDG grant; and whose workplan and budget seeks to help rural communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, partnerships and innovation. Eligible applicants who want to be considered for discretionary points must discuss how their workplan and budget supports one or more of the five following key strategies:

    Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America;

    Improving Quality of Life;

    Supporting a Rural Workforce;

    Harnessing Technological Innovation; and

    Economic Development.

    2. Review and Selection Process

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. The Administrator may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criterion (k) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 110. Applications will be funded in highest ranking order until the funding limitation has been reached. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is evaluated, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notices

    If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail from the State Office where your application was submitted, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.

    If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be approved. There will be no available funds for successful appellants once all FY 2018 funds are awarded and obligated. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.

    In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).

    The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

    • Agency-approved Grant Agreement.

    • Letter of Conditions.

    • Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    • Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

    • Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”

    • Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

    • SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

    • Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice. Institutions of Higher Education do not need to submit this form.

    3. Reporting

    After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:

    a. An SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). The project performance reports shall include the following: A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;

    b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;

    c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and

    d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.

    e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 60 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.

    f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.

    G. Agency Contacts

    If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the appropriate State Office at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program. If you want to submit an electronic application, follow the instructions for the RCDG funding announcement located at http://www.grants.gov. You may also contact National Office staff: Natalie Melton, RCDG Program Lead, [email protected], or call the main line at 202-690-1374.

    H. Nondiscrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    Dated: May 22, 2018. Bette B. Brand, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11482 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles, Including Cars, SUVs, Vans and Light Trucks, and Automotive Parts AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments and public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 23, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce by June 22, 2018. Rebuttal comments will be due by July 6, 2018. The Department of Commerce will also hold a public hearing on the investigation on July 19 and 20, 2018 in Washington, DC. This notice identifies the issues on which the Department is interested in obtaining the public's views. It also sets forth the procedures for public participation in the hearing.

    DATES:

    The due date for filing comments, for requests to appear at the public hearing, and for submissions of a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing is June 22, 2018.

    The due date is July 6, 2018 for rebuttal comments submitted in response to any comments filed on or before June 22, 2018.

    The public hearings will be held on July 19 and 20, 2018. The hearings will begin at 8:30 a.m. local time and conclude at 5:00 p.m. local time, each day.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments: All written submissions must be in English and must be addressed to Section 232 Automobile and Automotive Parts Imports Investigation, and filed through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number DOC-2018-0002 on the home page and click “search.” The site will provide a search results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice and click on the link entitled “Comment Now!” (For further information on using www.regulations.gov, please consult the resources provided on the website by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page). For alternatives to on-line submissions, please contact Sahra Park-Su at (202) 482-2811.

    Hearings: The public hearings will be held in the Department of Commerce's auditorium at 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sahra Park-Su, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-2811. For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, see www.bis.doc.gov/232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 23, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts. If the Secretary finds that automobiles and/or automotive parts are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust automobile and/or automotive parts imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

    Written Comments

    This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the U.S. Department of Commerce by June 22, 2018. Rebuttal comments submitted in response to comments received on or before June 22, 2018 may be filed no later than July 6, 2018.

    The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in § 705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security, including the following:

    • The quantity and nature of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts and other circumstances related to the importation of automobiles and automotive parts;

    • Domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;

    • Domestic production and productive capacity needed for automobiles and automotive parts to meet projected national defense requirements;

    • The existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce automobiles and automotive parts;

    • The growth requirements of the automobiles and automotive parts industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements to assure such growth, particularly with respect to investment and research and development;

    • The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the U.S. automobiles and automotive parts industry;

    • The displacement of any domestic automobiles and automotive parts causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects;

    • Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy;

    • The extent to which innovation in new automotive technologies is necessary to meet projected national defense requirements;

    • Whether and, if so, how the analysis of the above factors changes when U.S. production by majority U.S.-owned firms is considered separately from U.S. production by majority foreign-owned firms; and

    • Any other relevant factors.

    Additional Requirements for Written Comments

    The www.regulations.gov website allows users to provide comments by filling in a “Type Comment” field, or by attaching a document using an “Upload File” field. The Department prefers that comments be provided in an attached document. The Department prefers submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If the submission is in an application other than those two, please indicate the name of the application in the “Type Comment” field. Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as part of the submission itself rather than in separate files.

    Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except confidential business information. Comments may be viewed on www.regulations.gov by entering docket number DOC-2018-0002 in the search field on the home page.

    Material that is business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by § 705.6 of the regulations. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission, then file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission which can be placed in the public file on http://www.regulations.gov.

    For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.

    Communications from agencies of the United States Government will not be made available for public inspection. Please note that the submission of a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing is separate from the submission of other written comments and should be submitted separately.

    Public Hearing

    Consistent with the interest of the U.S. Department of Commerce in soliciting public comments on issues affecting U.S. industry and national security, the Department is holding a public hearing as part of the investigation. The hearing will further assist the Department in determining whether imports of automobiles and automotive parts threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies if such a threat is found to exist. Public comments at the hearing should address the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security described above.

    The hearing will be held on July 19 and 20, 2018 at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. local time and conclude at 5:00 p.m. local time, each day.

    Procedure for Requesting Participation

    The Department encourages interested public participants to present their views orally at the hearing. Any person wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit a written request to the Department of Commerce by June 22, 2018. The request to appear must include a summary of the expected testimony, and may also be accompanied by additional material. Remarks at the hearing may be limited to five minutes to allow for possible questions from U.S. government representatives.

    All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via www.regulations.gov. To submit a request to appear at the hearing via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number DOC-2018-0002. In the “Type Comment” field, include name, address, email address, and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony, as well as the organization or company that they represent. Attach a summary of the testimony, and pre-hearing submission if provided, by using the “Upload File” field. The file name should include the name of the person who will be presenting the testimony.

    The request to speak should include (1) the name and address of the person requesting to make a presentation; (2) a daytime phone number where the person who would be making the oral presentation may be contacted before the hearing; (3) the organization or company they represent; and (4) an email address.

    Please note that the submission of a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments. Since it may be necessary to limit the number of persons making presentations, the written request to participate in the public hearing should describe the individual's interest in the hearing and, where appropriate, explain why the individual is a proper representative of a group or class of persons that has such an interest. If all interested parties cannot be accommodated at the hearing, the summaries of the oral presentations will be used to allocate speaking time and to ensure that a full range of comments is heard.

    Each person selected to make a presentation will be notified by the Department of Commerce no later than 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 12, 2018. The Department will arrange the presentation times for the speakers. Persons selected to be heard are requested to bring 20 copies of their oral presentation and of all exhibits to the hearing site on the day of the hearing. All such material must be of a size consistent with ease of handling, transportation and filing. While large exhibits may be used during a hearing, copies of such exhibits in reduced size must be provided to the hearing panel. Written submissions by persons not selected to make presentations will be made part of the public record of the proceeding. Confidential business information may not be submitted at a public hearing. In the event confidential business information is submitted it will be handled according to the same procedures applicable to such information provided in the course of an investigation. See 15 CFR 705.6. The hearing will be recorded.

    The transcript of the hearing will be available on www.regulations.gov in docket number DOC-2018-0002.

    Conduct of the Hearing

    The Department reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule their respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. Each speaker may be limited to 5 minutes, and comments must be directly related to the criteria listed in 15 CFR 705.4 of the regulations. Attendees will be seated on a first-come, first-served basis.

    A Department official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The presiding officer shall determine all procedural matters during the hearing. Representatives from the Department, and other U.S. Government agencies as appropriate, will make up the hearing panel. This will be a fact-finding proceeding; it will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type hearing. Only members of the hearing panel may ask questions, and there will be no cross-examination of persons presenting statements. However, questions submitted to the presiding officer in writing may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be posed to the presenter. No formal rules of evidence will apply to the hearing.

    Any further procedural rules for the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding officer.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be received by the Department of Commerce no later than June 22, 2018 by contacting the Department of Commerce official identified in this Notice.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11708 Filed 5-25-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-875] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick O'Connor, 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) 482-0989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty investigation, as provided by section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce preliminarily found that fine denier PSF from India was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

    1See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures 83 FR 662 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (collectively, Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less Than Fair Value,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.3

    3See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    Scope Comments

    We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).4 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 5 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the record of this investigation, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of the comments and rebuttals that were timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on parties' comments, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation, as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 7 The product covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    4See Memorandum, “Due Dates for Case and Rebuttal Briefs Regarding the Scope,” dated December 11, 2017

    5See Preliminary Determination.

    6See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated January 16, 2018 (Final Scope Memorandum).

    7 While we made no changes to the scope based on parties' comments, we discovered that we inadvertently included the phrase “or pre-opened” in the scope in the Preliminary Determination. This phrase was not included in the scope in the Initiation. See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 29023 (Initiation). We have corrected this error by removing the phrase “or pre-opened” from the scope for this final determination.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January and March 2018, we conducted a verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), for use in this final determination.8 We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.

    8See Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Verification of the Sales Questionnaire Responses of Reliance Industries Limited,” dated March 13, 2018; and Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Reliance Industries Limited in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India,” dated March 27, 2018.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA)

    As in the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we have continued to base Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited's (Bombay Dyeing) dumping margin upon the facts otherwise available, with an adverse inference, because the company did not respond to Commerce's questionnaire. In addition, based on our verification findings, our re-evaluation of the record evidence, and our analysis of the comments received, we are also basing RIL's dumping margin on facts available with an adverse inference pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    As noted above, we are now basing RIL's dumping margin on facts available with an adverse inference. Moreover, we have revised the all-others rate as explained below.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate “shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act”. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, however, if “the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available,” Commerce “may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all-other producers and/or exporters.” 9 Furthermore, Congress, in the SAA, stated that when “the dumping margins for all of the exporters and producers that are individually investigated are determined entirely on the basis of the facts available or are zero or de minimis . . . (t)he expected method in such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins and margins determined pursuant to the facts available.” 10 For the final determination, Commerce has determined the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for each of the individually examined respondents under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, Commerce's normal practice under these circumstances has been to calculate the “all-others” rate as a simple average of the alleged dumping margins from the petition.11 In this case, however, we initiated using only one duming margin in the petition. Therefore, for the final determination, we have used this one dumping margin, which is 21.43 percent, as the “All-Others” rate.12

    9See also Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. 103-316, 103d Cong., 2d Session, vol 1 (1994) SAA at 873 (explaining that if all the rates are “determined entirely on the basis of the facts available or are zero or de minimis,” the “expected method in such cases will be to weight-average” the rates available. See also Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345, 1351-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining and relying on the “expected method,” as directed by the SAA).

    10See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 873 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4200.

    11See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; see also Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 78 FR 79670, 79671 (December 31, 2013), unchanged in Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 14476, 14477 (March 14, 2014). See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets from Taiwan, 73 FR 39673, 39674 (July 10, 2008).

    12See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Japan: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 32721 (May 24, 2016); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden, 70 FR 28278 (May 17, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium from the Republic of South Africa, 67 FR 71136 (November 29, 2002).

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit rate
  • (adjusted for subsidy
  • offset(s))
  • (percent)
  • Reliance Industries Limited 21.43 14.48 Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited 21.43 15.49 All-Others 21.43 14.67
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from India as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and/or exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Further, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value (NV) exceeds the U.S. price, as shown above, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation. Consistent with Commerce's practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, Commerce instructs CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies.13 Because a countervailing duty order has been issued with respect to fine denier PSF from India and suspension of liquidation is occurring with respect to this order, Commerce will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above.14 Therefore, so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the final column of the rate chart, above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    13See, e.g., Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61362, 61364 (October 13, 2015); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers from the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413, 17417 (March 26, 2012).

    14See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from India: Final Affirmative Determination, 83 FR 3122 (January 23, 2018); see also Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China and India: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for the People's Republic of China and Countervailing Duty Orders for the People's Republic of China and India, 83 FR 12149 (March 20, 2018).

    Disclosure

    Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce applied AFA to the individually examined companies, RIL and Bombay Dyeing, in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from India no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.201(c).

    Dated: May 23, 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 merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should Apply Total Adverse Facts Available Comment 2: Whether Commerce Should Apply Partial AFA to Certain Freight Expenses Comment 3: Whether Commerce Should Reduce RIL's Billing Adjustments Comment 4: Whether Commerce Should Reject RIL's Inland Freight to Warehouse Comment 5: Whether Commerce Should Reject RIL's Reported Warranty Expenses Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Rely on RIL's Rebate and Commission Fields Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Correct an Error in RIL's Margin Program Comment 8: Reliance Artificially Understated the Reported Costs by Reporting Chain Cost and Withholding the Cost Reconciliation in the Form and Manner Requested by Commerce Comment 9: Reliance understated the Reported General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses Comment 10: RIL Understated the Financial Expenses VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-11710 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-060] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. The period of investigation is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edythe Artman or John McGowan, 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) 482-3931 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty investigation, as provided by section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce preliminarily found that fine denier PSF from China was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

    1See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 665 (January 5, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.3

    3See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    Scope Comments

    We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).4 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 5 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the record of this investigation, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of the comments and rebuttals that were timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on parties' comments, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation, as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 7 The product covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    4See Memorandum, “Due Dates for Case and Rebuttal Briefs Regarding the Scope,” dated December 11, 2017.

    5See Preliminary Determination.

    6See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated January 16, 2018 (Final Scope Memorandum).

    7 While we made no changes to the scope based on parties' comments, we discovered that we inadvertently included the phrase “or pre-opened” in the scope in the Preliminary Determination. This phrase was not included in the scope in the Initiation (see Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 29023 (Initiation). We have corrected this error by removing the phrase “or pre-opened” from the scope for this final determination.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of the sales and factors-of-production information reported by Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (Hailun) 8 and Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (Huahong).9 We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondents.

    8 We have determined that Hailun and several affiliates should be collapsed and treated as a single entity for purposes of this investigation. See Memorandum from Commerce, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing Status for Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd.,” dated December 18, 2017. Therefore, any reference to Hailun in this notice refers to the collapsed entity including the following companies: Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Xinlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Yunlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Bolun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Fenghua Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Huamei Special Fiber Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Huasheng Polymerization Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Huayi Polymerization Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Huaxing Synthetic Co., Ltd.; and Jiangyin Xingsheng Plastic Co., Ltd.

    9 We have determined that Huahong and two affiliates should be collapsed and treated as a single entity for purposes of this investigation. See Memorandum from Commerce, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum for Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Huakai Polyester Co., Ltd., and Jiangyin Hongkai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.,” dated December 18, 2017. Therefore, any reference to Huahong in this notice refers to the collapsed entity including the following companies: Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Huakai Polyester Co., Ltd., and Jiangyin Hongkai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Changes to the Dumping Margin Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on Commerce's analysis of the comments received and findings at verification, we made certain changes to our dumping margin calculations. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    China-Wide Entity

    For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Determination, we are continuing to find that the use of adverse facts available (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is appropriate and are applying a rate based entirely on AFA to the China-wide entity. Commerce did not receive timely responses to its quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire, separate rate applications, or separate rate supplemental questionnaires from certain exporters and/or producers of subject merchandise that were named in the petition and to which Commerce issued Q&V questionnaires.10 As these non-responsive China companies did not demonstrate that they are eligible for separate rate status, Commerce continues to consider them to be a part of the China-wide entity. Consequently, we continue to find that the China-wide entity withheld requested information, significantly impeded the proceeding, and failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities, and thus we are continuing to base the China-wide entity's rate on AFA.

    10See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at Separate Rate Section.

    China-Wide Rate

    In selecting the AFA rate for the China-wide entity, Commerce's practice is to select a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated.11 Specifically, it is Commerce's practice to select, as an AFA rate, the higher of: (a) The highest dumping margin alleged in the petition; or, (b) the highest calculated dumping margin of any respondent in the investigation.12 As AFA, Commerce has assigned to the China-wide entity the rate of 103.06 percent, which is the highest dumping margin alleged in the petition.13

    11See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethyl cellulose from Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethyl cellulose from Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005).

    12See, e.g., Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    13See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5 for additional information.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, Commerce stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.14 Accordingly, we have assigned combination rates to Hailun and Huahong, along with 14 other companies receiving a separate rate, as provided in the “Final Determination” section below.15

    14See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 29023, 29028 (June 27, 2017) (Initiation Notice); see also Enforcement and Compliance Policy Bulletin No. 05.1 “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005), available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    15 The dumping margin for the separate rate companies is based on a simple average of the rates from both mandatory respondents, offset by the export subsidy adjustment for the all-others' rate in the companion countervailing duty case. See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 7 for additional information.

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Producer Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit adjusted for subsidy offset
  • (percent)
  • Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd./Jiangyin Xinlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Yunlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Bolun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Fenghua Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huamei Special Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huasheng Polymerization Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huayi Polymerization Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huaxing Synthetic Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Xingsheng Plastic Co., Ltd Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd 72.22 72.22 Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Huakai Polyester Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Hongkai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 65.17 65.11 Hangzhou Best Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Hangzhou Best Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangsu Xinsu Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangsu Xinsu Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangyin Jinyan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Xiang He Tai Fiber Technology Co., Ltd Jiangyin Jinyan Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangsu Hengze Composite Materials Technology Co., Ltd./Chuzhou Prosperity Environmental Protection Color Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Xiang He Tai Fiber Technology Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Hengfeng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd./Jiangyin Shunze Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Jiangyin Yangxi International Trade Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhejiang Jinfuchun Industrial Co., Ltd Zhejiang Jinfuchun Industrial Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd Nanyang Textile Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co. Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd Zhaoqing Tifo New Fibre Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangyin Yueda Chemical Fiber Limited Company/Hangzhou BenMa Chemical and Spinning Company Ltd./Yizheng Chemical Fiber Limited Liability Company Unifi Textiles (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Yuyao Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Yuyao Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Jiangyin Jindun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Zhangjiagang City Hongtuo Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Zhejiang Huashun Technology Co., Ltd Zhejiang Linan Foreign Trade Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 Suzhou Zhengbang Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd Suzhou Zhengbang Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd 68.70 68.64 China-Wide Entity 103.06 103.00
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from China as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate identified in the table; (2) for all combinations of Chinese exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies.16 Accordingly, as discussed in further detail in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have adjusted the cash deposit rates for Huahong, non-selected separate rate respondents, and the China-wide entity by 0.06 percent.17 These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above. Furthermore, we are not adjusting the final determination for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through because the respondents failed to substantiate a subsidies-to-cost link and a cost-to-price-link.18 Because a companion countervailing duty order has been issued,19 and suspension of liquidation on fine denier PSF from China continues pursuant to that order, Commerce will continue to instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate.

    16See section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Unlike in administrative reviews, Commerce makes an adjustment for export subsidies in an LTFV investigation not in the calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    17 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 6-8.

    18Id. at Comment 2.

    19See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China and India: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination for the People's Republic of China and Countervailing Duty Orders for the People's Republic of China and India, 83 FR 11681 (March 16, 2018).

    Disclosure

    We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from China no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: May 23, 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 merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Selection and Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available Rate Applied to the China-Wide Entity VI. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates VII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Selections for PTA Comment 2: Hailun and Huahong's Double Remedy Adjustments Comment 3: Calculations for Hailun's Purchased and Consigned PET Melt VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-11714 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-893] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karine Gziryan or Celeste Chen, 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) 482-4081 of (202) 482-0890 respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty investigation, as provided by section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce preliminarily found that fine denier PSF from Korea was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

    1See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 660 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (collectively, Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less Than Fair Value,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.3

    3See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    Scope Comments

    We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).4 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 5 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the record of this investigation, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of the comments and rebuttals that were timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on parties' comments, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation, as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 7 The product covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    4See Memorandum, “Due Dates for Case and Rebuttal Briefs Regarding the Scope,” dated December 11, 2017

    5See Preliminary Determination.

    6See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Republic of Taiwan, and Korea: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated January 16, 2018 (Final Scope Memorandum).

    7 While we made no changes to the scope based on parties' comments, we discovered that we inadvertently included the phrase “or pre-opened” in the scope in the Preliminary Determination. This phrase was not included in the scope in the Initiation (see Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Korea, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 29023 (Initiation). We have corrected this error by removing the phrase “or pre-opened” from the scope for this final determination.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from January 15 through 19, 2018, we conducted a verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Toray Chemical Korea Inc. (TCK), for use in this final determination.8 We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.

    8See Memorandum, “Verification of the Sales Response of Toray Chemical Korea Inc. in the Antidumping Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated March 7, 2018; and Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Toray Chemical Korea, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated March 22, 2018.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA)

    As in the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has continued to base Huvis Corporation's (Huvis) and Down Nara, Co., Ltd.'s (Down Nara) dumping margin on the facts otherwise available, with an adverse inference, because the companies did not respond to Commerce's questionnaire or otherwise participate in the investigation.9 In addition, as part of the AFA determination with respect to Down Nara, Commerce has determined that Koreco Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Down Nara and we have updated the rate chart below accordingly.10

    9See Huvis' Letter, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Intent Not to Participate,” dated August 10, 2017 and Down Nara did not respond to Commerce's AD questionnaire.

    10 For further information, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 and memorandum “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Proprietary Discussion of Issues Contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum” dated concurrently with this Federal Register notice.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the dumping margin calculations for TCK. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all-other producers and/or exporters, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” Because (1) the dumping margin for Huvis Corporation and Down Nara, Co., Ltd. is based on AFA and (2) the dumping margin for Toray Chemical Kora Inc. (TCK) is zero, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we calculated the “all-others”' rate as a simple average of the dumping margins of Huvis Corporation, Down Nara, Co., Ltd. and TCK.

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Toray Chemical Korea Inc 0.00 Huvis Corporation 45.23 Down Nara, Co., Ltd., Down-Nara, Co., Ltd. (AKA Koreco Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd.) 45.23 All-Others 30.15

    Consistent with section 735(a)(4) of the Act, based on the zero rate for TCK, Commerce determined that TCK has not sold merchandise which it produced and exported at LTFV.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from Korea as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise, except as explained below; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and/or exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for TCK is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise both produced and exported by TCK will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. In such situations, Commerce applies the exclusion to the provisional measures to the producer/exporter combination that was examined in the investigation. Accordingly, Commerce is directing CBP to not suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise exported and produced by TCK. Entries of shipments of subject merchandise from TCK in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination, are subject to the provisional measures at the all-others rate.

    Because the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin for subject merchandise exported and produced by TCK is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination will be excluded from the antidumping duty order. This exclusion is not applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by TCK in any other producer/exporter combinations or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination.

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from Korea no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: May 23, 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 merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues Comment 1: Whether to Apply Total AFA to TCK Based on Verification Comment 1(a): Minor Corrections Comment 1(b): Tolling Arrangement Comment 1(c): Misreported Sales of Products Not Produced Comment 1(d): Failure to Provide Correct Translations Comment 2: Whether to Apply AFA to Down Nara Comment 3: Whether Commerce's Calculation of the “All-Others” Rate is Supported by its Practice and Is Consistent with the Statute and Court Precedent Comment 4: Whether the Totality of Circumstances Regarding Cost Reporting Warrants Application of Total or Partial AFA. Comment 5: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Purchases of EG for Physical Inventory Adjustments and Certain Ancillary Costs. Comment 6: Whether Commerce Should Adjust TCK's Reported Unit Costs of Manufacture for the Subject Fine Denier PSF Comment 6(a): Pattern of Understatement Comment 6(b): Physical Characteristics Comment 6(c): SAP® System Comment 6(d): PET Chips Comment 6(e): TPA Consumption Comment 6(f): Affiliated PET Chips Purchases Comment 7: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Affiliated Trading Company's SG&A Expense Rate Calculation Comment 8: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Cost and Sales of Certain Product Codes Comment 9: Whether Commerce Should Deny the Offset to G&A Expenses Comment 10: Whether Commerce Should Adjust the Non-Operating Income Used to Offset the G&A and Financial Expenses Comment 11: Whether Commerce Should Continue to Apply the Affiliated Party Purchases Adjustment Comment 12: Whether Commerce Should Eliminate the Unreconciled Difference Adjustment to TCK's Reported Costs III. Background IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Discussion of the Issues VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-11711 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-860] Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF) from Taiwan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian, 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) 482-6412.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 5, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty investigation, as provided by section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce preliminarily found that fine denier PSF from Taiwan was sold at LTFV.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

    1See Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 668 (January 5, 2018), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (collectively, Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less Than Fair Value,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination in this investigation is now May 23, 2018.3

    3See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    Scope Comments

    We provided parties an opportunity to provide comments on all issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).4 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 5 For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttals submitted to the record of this investigation, and our accompanying discussion and analysis of the comments and rebuttals that were timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.6 Based on parties' comments, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation, as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. 7 The product covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF from Taiwan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    4See Memorandum, “Due Dates for Case and Rebuttal Briefs Regarding the Scope,” dated December 11, 2017.

    5See Preliminary Determination.

    6See Memorandum, “Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated January 16, 2018 (Final Scope Memorandum).

    7 While we made no changes to the scope based on parties' comments, we discovered that we inadvertently included the phrase “or pre-opened” in the scope in the Preliminary Determination. This phrase was not included in the scope in the Initiation (see Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 29023 (Initiation). We have corrected this error by removing the phrase “or pre-opened” from the scope for this final determination.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, from January 8 through 19, 2018, we conducted a verification of the information reported by the mandatory respondent Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd. (TSCL), for use in this final determination.8 We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records and original source documents provided by the respondent.

    8See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Verification of the Sales Responses of Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd.,” dated February 28, 2018; and Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd. in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,” dated February 27, 2018.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

    Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA)

    As in the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce has continued to base Far Eastern Textile, Ltd.'s (Far Eastern) 9 dumping margin on the facts otherwise available, with an adverse inference, because the company did not respond to Commerce's questionnaire or otherwise participate in the investigation.10

    9 Also known as Far Eastern New Century Corporation.

    10See Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Far Eastern Textile Ltd.,” dated August 8, 2017, at Attachment I (Far Eastern Withdrawal).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the dumping margin calculations for TSCL. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that in the final determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use “any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all-other producers and/or exporters, including averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.” Because (1) the dumping margin for Far Eastern is based on AFA and (2) the dumping margin for TSCL is zero, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we calculated the “all-others”' rate as a simple average of the dumping margins of Far Eastern and TSCL.

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Tainan Spinning Co., Ltd 0.00 Far Eastern Textile Ltd. (AKA Far Eastern New Century Corporation) 48.86 All-Others 24.43

    Consistent with section 735(a)(4) of the Act, based on the zero rate for TSCL, Commerce has determined that TSCL has not sold merchandise which it produced and exported at LTFV.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of fine denier PSF from Taiwan as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 5, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise, except as explained below; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and/or exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.

    Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for TSCL is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise both produced and exported by TSCL will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. In such situations, Commerce applies the exclusion to the provisional measures to the producer/exporter combination that was examined in the investigation. Accordingly, Commerce is directing CBP to not suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by TSCL. Entries of shipments of subject merchandise from TSCL in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination, are subject to the provisional measures at the all-others rate.

    Because the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin for subject merchandise produced and exported by TSCL is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise from this producer/exporter combination will be excluded from the antidumping duty order. This exclusion is not applicable to merchandise exported to the United States by TSCL in any other producer/exporter combinations or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination.

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its final affirmative determination. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of fine denier PSF from Taiwan no later than 45 days after Commerce's final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on appropriate imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 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 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 the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: May 23, 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 merchandise covered by this investigation is fine denier polyester staple fiber (fine denier PSF), not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are excluded from the scope:

    (1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.

    (2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0015.

    Fine denier PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 5503.20.0025. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Reported Costs for a Certain Product Control Number (CONNUM) Comment 1(a): Direct Material Costs Comment 1(b): Allocation of Labor and Overhead Comment 1(c): Market Price Methodology for Grades B and C PSF Comment 1(d): Scrap Offset Calculation Comment 2: Factoring Agreement Comment 3: Packing Cost Comment 4: Application of Partial Facts Available VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-11712 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 180427421-8421-01] RIN 0660-XC042 Improving the Quality and Accuracy of Broadband Availability Data AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), on behalf of the Department of Commerce (Department), is requesting comment on actions that can be taken to improve the quality and accuracy of broadband availability data, particularly in rural areas, as part of the activities directed by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. Through this Request for Comments (RFC), NTIA seeks input from a broad range of interested stakeholders—including private industry; academia; federal, state, and local government; not-for-profits; and other stakeholders with an interest in broadband availability—on ways to improve the nation's ability to analyze broadband availability, with the intention of identifying gaps in broadband availability that can be used to improve policymaking and inform public investments.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] Written comments may also be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4887, Attn: Douglas Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Washington, DC 20230. For more instructions about submitting comments, see the “Instructions for Commenters” section of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andy Spurgeon, tel.: (720) 389-4900, email: [email protected], or Tim Moyer, tel.: (202) 482-6423, email: [email protected], National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230. Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002, or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Broadband connectivity is essential to the nation's economic growth and social advancement. It is the conduit for economic and social opportunities for U.S. households and a gateway to increased productivity, growth and market access for businesses of all sizes, yet many American businesses, households and critical anchor institutions lack sufficient broadband availability. Using its current definition of broadband (25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data show that approximately 8 percent of Americans lived in places where fixed terrestrial broadband service was unavailable by the end of 2016. This data also demonstrates that there continued to be a significant disparity across America, with more than 30 percent of rural Americans and approximately 35 percent of those living on Tribal lands lacking broadband availability, compared to 2 percent of Americans living in urban areas.1 Many businesses, schools and libraries in rural and Tribal areas are insufficiently served or cannot afford the network transmission speed required to support multiple users of bandwidth-intensive applications. Knowing where the persistent gaps in broadband exist is crucial to enabling more efficient and effective investments in broadband infrastructure from both the public and private sectors.

    1 Federal Communications Commission 2018 Broadband Progress Report. See https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-18-10A1.pdf.

    NTIA, in collaboration with the FCC, pioneered the collection of extensive broadband deployment data when it launched the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) in 2009. Through this program, NTIA worked with every state, territory, and the District of Columbia to collect fixed and mobile broadband availability data for over 11 million Census blocks every six months for five years. To make these data accessible to a broad audience, NTIA launched the National Broadband Map (NBM) in 2011. Although the SBI program ended in 2015, NTIA continues its extensive work to collect, analyze, and disseminate data relevant to broadband availability and adoption.

    Presently, the only source of nationwide broadband availability data is that collected from broadband service provider responses to the FCC Form 477 Fixed Broadband Deployment data process. Form 477 data are submitted by voice and broadband telecommunications service providers semi-annually and include information on services each provider offers, at the Census block level.2 While the Census block system provides a very high level of geographic granularity overall—the United States is divided into over 11 million blocks, 95 percent of which do not exceed 1 square mile in land area—it is possible that broadband availability may vary within a single block, particularly if it is geographically larger (which is most common in rural areas). A provider offering service to any homes or businesses in a Census block is instructed to report that block as served in its Form 477 filing, even though it may not offer broadband services in most of the block. This can lead to overstatements in the level of broadband availability, especially in rural areas where Census blocks are large.

    2 “All facilities-based broadband providers are required to file data with the FCC twice a year (Form 477) on where they offer internet access service at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.” See https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-477.

    Moreover, there is no independent validation or verification process for Form 477 data service providers to submit to the FCC. While NTIA believes that the Form 477 data program is impressively large and useful, and benefits broadband policy research and decision-making, as well as the FCC's internal needs, NTIA also believes that the Form 477 data collection program suffers from issues with data accuracy.

    Recognizing the deficiencies of the current broadband data collection process, Congress directed NTIA to update the national broadband availability map in coordination with the FCC and use partnerships previously developed with the states. Unlike the SBI program, in which NTIA worked with the states to collect and validate broadband availability data independent from the FCC's Form 477 data collection process, this is not a new program to fund the primary collection of broadband availability or subscription data, nor to fund specific data collection activities by states or third parties. Rather, Congress directed NTIA to acquire and display available third-party data sets to the extent it is able to negotiate inclusion to augment data from the FCC, other federal government agencies, state government, and the private sector. The objective of these updates is to identify regions of the country with insufficient broadband capacity, particularly in rural areas.

    NTIA is well-suited to perform this task. It has extensive experience collecting data on broadband adoption and usage in the United States, creating decades of datasets that complement the Form 477 data collections on broadband deployment and subscription. Since 1994, NTIA has partnered with the Census Bureau (Census) to survey approximately 53,000 U.S. households on their internet and computer use. NTIA's questionnaire, administered as a supplement to Census's Current Population Survey (CPS), includes more than 50 questions to gather a wealth of information on household and individual internet use and demographics, including the locations, technologies, and devices that people use to go online, their online activities, and the reasons why some Americans still do not utilize these technologies. Whereas Form 477 focuses on broadband availability and subscription data gathered from service providers, NTIA's CPS Supplements provide detailed information on adoption and usage of the internet, as reported by households across the country. The NTIA surveys, together with the FCC's Form 477 and three household broadband adoption questions on the American Community Survey, comprise a valuable, holistic set of federal data sources related to broadband.

    NTIA issues this RFC to solicit informed recommendations and feedback on sources of broadband availability data, mechanisms to validate broadband availability data using multiple data sources or new techniques, and approaches to leverage such data and techniques to inform broadband planning at the state and national levels by promoting the most efficient use of state or federal funding to areas that are insufficiently served by broadband.

    Request for Comments: NTIA invites comment on the full range of issues that may be presented by this inquiry, including issues that are not specifically raised in the questions below. Commenters are encouraged to address any or all of the questions below. Comments that contain references to studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments.

    1. Identifying additional broadband availability data:

    a. What additional data on broadband availability are available from federal, state, not-for-profit, academic, or private-sector sources to augment the FCC Form 477 data set?

    b. What obstacles—such as concerns about the quality, scope, or format of the data, as well as contractual, confidentiality, or data privacy concerns—might prevent the collaborative use of such data?

    2. Technology type, service areas, and bandwidth: Please consider providing a table or spreadsheet attachment when responding to question 2, if needed.

    a. For each broadband availability data source, please define the specific broadband technologies (e.g., wireline, cable, fixed wireless, satellite, multiple sources, etc.) included in the data set. Please explain the service areas or geographic scope of the data set (e.g., Census block, county, cable franchises, publicly funded service areas, etc.) and describe how records from the data set could be matched with records from Form 477 data.

    b. Describe how frequently the data set is updated and the methodology used for collection and what measures are employed to validate or otherwise ensure the data is accurate. Please explain whether the data set differentiates between subscribed bandwidth and maximum available speeds.

    c. For each data set, please provide the name(s) and type(s) of entity that collects the data.

    d. Finally, please specify the format of the data (e.g., CSV, specific database, specific Geographic Information System (GIS) format, etc.)

    3. New approaches: Are there new approaches, tools, technologies, or methodologies that could be used to capture broadband availability data, particularly in rural areas?

    4. Validating broadband availability data:

    a. What methodologies, policies, standards, or technologies can be implemented to validate and compare various broadband availability data sources and identify and address conflicts between them?

    b. Do examples or studies of such validation exist?

    c. What thresholds or benchmarks should be taken into account when validating broadband availability, such as bandwidth, latency, geographic coverage, technology type, etc.? How can conformance to such standards be used to evaluate the accuracy of broadband data sets? How could those standards be used to improve policymaking, program management, or research in broadband-related fields?

    5. Identifying gaps in broadband availability:

    a. What data improvements can the government implement to better identify areas with insufficient broadband capacity?

    b. What other inputs should NTIA seek to inform data-driven broadband policy- and decision-making?

    Instructions for Commenters: Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Comments submitted by mail may be in hard copy (paper) or electronic (on CD-ROM or disk). Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted on the NTIA website, https://www.ntia.doc.gov, without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will accept anonymous comments.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. David J. Redl, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11483 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2018-HQ-0005] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Evaluation of Health Status of an Infantry Battalion Following Deployment in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2004-2005; OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 3,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 3,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 1 Hour.

    Annual Burden Hours: 3,500.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to assess and evaluate the self-reported post-deployment health status of selected soldiers who operated in the vicinity of Mosul, Iraq in 2004 (e.g., 1-24 Infantry Battalion). The data collected from the survey will be used to compare the health of current and former U.S. Army personnel after their initial deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) to that of a subset of Millennium Cohort Study participants. This evaluation is being conducted at the request of the Army Chief of Staff.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11565 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2018-OS-0013] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Certification of Qualified Products; DD Form 1718; OMB Control Number 0704-0487.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 1,276.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,276.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 638 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain, certify, and record qualification of products or processes falling under the DoD Qualification Program. This form is included as an exhibit in an appeal or hearing case file as evidence of the reviewers' products or process qualifications in advance of, and independent of, acquisition.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Biennially.

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

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11555 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2018-HA-0009] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Cortney Higgins, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Screening and Monitoring of DoD Personnel Deployed to Ebola Outbreak Areas; DD Form 2990 and DD Form 2991; OMB Control Number 0720-0056.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 1,200.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 2,400.

    Average Burden per Response: 12 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 480.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to ensure DoD personnel deployed in support of Operation UNITED ASSISTANCE are promptly evaluated for possible exposure(s) to the Ebola virus during deployment to, and within 12 hours prior to departing from, an Ebola outbreak country or region. Ebola is a Quarantinable Communicable Disease as named in Executive Order 13295 and supported by several DoD regulations and Federal laws. This information will be used by DoD medical and public health officials to (1) ensure Ebola exposure risk is evaluated, (2) proper prevention and quarantine efforts are implemented, (3) appropriate medical care is provided, (4) medical surveillance programs are robust and (5) the spread of Ebola beyond area of concern is minimized. The DoD has consulted with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and several Defense Agencies regarding disease control efforts and health surveillance in response to the public health emergency in West Africa and worldwide. DoD has also specifically discussed these new information collections with representatives of the various Military Services, representing deploying military members who have participated in the development of the content of these forms.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Cortney Higgins.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11554 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0020] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Migrant Student Information Exchange User Application Form AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0020. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 216-44, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Maria Hishikawa, 202-260-1473.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Migrant Student Information Exchange User Application Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0686.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 420.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 210.

    Abstract: The Department requests to extend the collection of the existing MSIX User Application. State educational agencies (SEAs) with MEPs will collect the information from state and local education officials who desire access to the MSIX system. The collection instrument verifies the applicant's need for MSIX data and authorizes the user's access to that data. The burden hours associated with the data collection are required to meet the statutory mandate in Sec. 1308(b) of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, which is to facilitate the electronic exchange by the SEAs of a set of minimum data elements to address the educational and related needs of migratory children.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11505 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-2018-OESE-0048] Intent To Award Grantback Funds to the Pennsylvania Department of Education AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under section 459 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), the Secretary of Education (Secretary) intends to repay to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) an amount that represents approximately 75 percent of the amount of funds recovered by the Department of Education (Department) under Title I, Part A and Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.010A. This notice describes PDE's plans for the use of the repaid funds and the terms and conditions under which the Secretary intends to make grantback funds available. This notice invites comments on the proposed grantback.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on or before June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “Help.”

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The Department strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments electronically. However, if you mail or deliver your comments about this proposed grantback, address them to James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: 202-260-9737. Email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect on the Secretary's decision regarding awarding this grantback, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposal that each comment addresses.

    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W246, Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. If you want to schedule time to inspect comments, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    A. Background

    In March 2017, the Department recovered $7,186,222 from PDE relating to findings in a March 29, 2011, program determination letter (PDL) issued by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The PDL followed an audit report by the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the School District of Philadelphia's (SDP) control over Federal expenditures, covering the audit period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006 (Audit Control Number ED-OIG-A03H0010). The PDL sustained certain audit findings and disallowed a total of $9,968,423. Through settlement negotiations, the Department and PDE agreed that $2,782,201 was barred from recovery by the statute of limitations. PDE appealed the remaining $7,186,222 liability to an Administrative Law Judge, the Secretary, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit denied PDE's petition for review, and sustained the remaining liability. PDE filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 3, 2016. SDP paid the full liability to PDE, and in turn, PDE has paid the full liability to the Department.

    The claims arose under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB (Pub. L. 107-110), 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. 1 Of the total amount recovered, $7,074,599 resolved findings related to Title I, Part A of the ESEA, and $111,007 resolved findings related to Title IV, Part A of the ESEA, also referred to as the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Community Act (SDFSCA). In its grantback application, PDE requests repayment in the amount of $5,389,204, representing approximately 75 percent of the total amount related to Title I, Part A and SDFSCA.

    1 In 2015, the ESEA was amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub. L. 114-95).

    The Department's claims of $7,074,599 related to Title I, Part A were contained in Findings 2, 4, and 5 of the March 29, 2011 PDL, and the claims of $111,007 related to SDFSCA were contained in Findings 4 and 5. As for Title I, Part A, the Department found that SDP had violated section 1120A(b) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, by using Title I, Part A funds to supplant non-Federal funds in payments for certain consulting contracts, and that SDP had charged the full cost, rather than the incremental cost, as allowed, of transporting students to the school of their choice. In addition, the Department found that SDP had inadequate procedures for processing transportation costs for afterschool programs, resulting in overcharges to Title I, Part A and violations of 34 CFR 76.731, 80.20, and 80.22(b), and OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, Section C.2 For both Title I, Part A and SDFSCA, the Department found that SDP had inadequate procedures for charging indirect costs to Federal programs and for processing journal voucher transfers for staff salaries and fringe benefits, resulting in overcharging costs to both ESEA programs and violations of 34 CFR 76.731, 80.20, and 80.22(b), and OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, Section C.

    2 In 2014, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) replaced 34 CFR part 80 and OMB Circular A-87, among other provisions.

    Following the release of the OIG Audit Report, PDE and SDP immediately took steps to ensure that the practices that led to the audit findings would not reoccur. In collaboration with PDE and the Department's Risk Management Service, SDP developed and began implementing five corrective action initiatives directly responsive to the audit findings and has been implementing these procedures since that time. PDE assures that SDP, with the oversight of PDE, has fully resolved the findings from the OIG audit report.

    B. Authority for Awarding a Grantback

    Section 459(a) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234h(a), provides that, whenever the Secretary has recovered funds under an applicable program because the recipient made an expenditure of funds that was not allowable, the Secretary may consider those funds to be additional funds available for the program and may arrange to repay to the grantee affected by that determination an amount not to exceed 75 percent of the recovered funds. The Secretary may enter into this grantback requested by PDE if the Secretary determines that—

    (a) The practices and procedures that resulted in the audit findings in question have been corrected, and the recipients are in compliance with the requirements of the applicable programs;

    (b) PDE has submitted to the Secretary a plan for the use of the funds to be awarded under the grantback arrangement that meets the requirements of the program and, to the extent possible, benefits the population that was affected by the failure to comply or by misexpenditures that resulted in the recovery; and

    (c) The use of funds to be awarded under the grantback arrangement in accordance with that plan would serve to achieve the purposes of the program under which the funds were originally granted.

    C. Plan for Use of Funds Awarded Under a Grantback Arrangement

    Pursuant to section 459(a)(2) of GEPA, PDE has applied for a grantback totaling $5,389,204, which is approximately 75 percent of the principal amount of the recovered Title I, Part A and SDFSCA funds, and has submitted a plan outlining the activities that would be supported with the grantback funds. While the ESSA amendments to the ESEA eliminated SDFSCA, activities formerly authorized under SDFSCA can currently be supported through Title I, Part A of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, and PDE plans to use $85,000 in grantback funds—slightly more than the proportion of grantback funds related to SDFSCA—for activities that would have been authorized under SDFSCA.

    SDP plans to use grantback funds for three activities in the 2018-19 school year. First, SDP proposes a math initiative to improve teaching skills and student learning. As proposed, SDP would provide approximately 1,000 kindergarten through 12th grade math teachers with a week-long professional learning institute in the summer of 2018. Additionally, SDP would provide designated math lead teachers in participating schools with compensation for leading planning and professional development sessions outside of the school day. Finally, SDP would provide eligible schools that participated in the summer institute with funds for extracurricular salary support for facilitating before and after school sessions for students, and give preference for those funds to low-performing schools.

    Next, SDP plans to use grantback funds to provide seven full-time reading specialists to support kindergarten through third grade students who are significantly behind their expected reading level. The specialists would work with targeted students at least weekly in small groups using specially designed lesson plans that use best practices to scaffold student learning.

    Finally, SDP plans to use grantback funds to support a school climate initiative in five schools. A coach would provide participating schools with training on how to implement a curriculum centered on social and emotional learning as well as bullying prevention. The coach would work with each school to develop a training plan, provide technical assistance in implementing and teaching the lessons, and monitor implementation.

    D. The Secretary's Determinations

    The Secretary has carefully reviewed the plan submitted by PDE. Based upon that review, the Secretary has determined that the conditions under section 459(a) of GEPA have been met.

    This determination is based upon the best information available to the Secretary at the present time. If this information is not accurate or complete, the Secretary is not precluded from taking appropriate administrative action. In finding that the conditions of section 459(a) of GEPA have been met, the Secretary makes no determination concerning any pending audit recommendations or final audit determinations.

    The Secretary also has concluded that, to the extent possible, this grantback award would support the provision of services to the population of intended beneficiaries of the program under which the Title I, Part A and SDFSCA grants were originally made. The population of intended beneficiaries may not have received the full benefit of the services intended by the Title I, Part A and SDFSCA grant awards, due to the problems that gave rise to the audit recovery described in Section A of this notice. However, the Secretary has determined that if awarded, this grantback would advance and support the same policy goals and purposes of the statutory provisions that authorized the Title I, Part A and SDFSCA programs, and would be used in compliance with all current statutory and regulatory program requirements.

    E. Notice of the Secretary's Intent To Enter Into a Grantback Arrangement With PDE

    Section 459(d) of GEPA requires that, at least 30 days before entering into an arrangement to award funds under a grantback, the Secretary publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to do so, and the terms and conditions under which the payment would be made. In accordance with section 459(d) of GEPA, notice is hereby given that the Secretary intends to make funds available to PDE under a grantback arrangement. The grantback award would be in the amount of $5,389,204, which is approximately 75 percent of the principal amount recovered.

    F. Terms and Conditions Under Which Payments Under a Grantback Arrangement With PDE Would Be Made

    PDE agrees to comply with the following terms and conditions under which payments under a grantback arrangement would be made:

    (a) The funds awarded under the grantback must be spent in accordance with—

    (1) All applicable statutory and regulatory requirements;

    (2) The submitted plan and any amendments to the plan that are approved in advance by the Secretary; and

    (3) The budget submitted with the approved plan and any amendments to the budget that are approved in advance by the Secretary.

    (b) All funds received under the grantback arrangement must be obligated by September 30, 2020, in accordance with section 459(c) of GEPA and PDE's approved plan.

    (c) PDE must, no later than December 31 of each year for which it has funds under this grantback, submit a report to the Secretary that documents the expenditure of funds and progress of activities under the grantback arrangement.

    (d) PDE must, no later than December 31, 2020, submit a report to the Secretary that—

    (1) Indicates that the funds awarded under the grantback have been spent in accordance with the proposed plan and any amendments that have been approved in advance by the Secretary; and

    (2) Describes the results and effectiveness of the project for which the funds were spent.

    (e) PDE must maintain separate accounting records documenting the expenditures of funds awarded under the grantback arrangement.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Jason Botel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11592 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Publication of State Plan Pursuant to the Help America Vote Act AGENCY:

    U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) received a revised HAVA State Plan from the State of West Virginia in accordance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Pursuant to HAVA, the EAC is required to publish the revised HAVA State Plan in the Federal Register for a 30-day period before the proposed revisions can take effect. The revised HAVA State Plan will be posted on the EAC website and available for review.

    DATES:

    Revisions become applicable after 30-day publication in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Abbott, Telephone 301-563-3956 or 1-866-747-1471 (toll-free).

    Submit Comments: Any comments regarding the plans published herewith should be made in writing to the chief election official of the individual State at the address listed below.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EAC in accordance with the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) (52 U.S.C. 21005(b)) published in the Federal Register the original HAVA State plans filed by the fifty States, the District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (hereinafter, the States). See 69 FR 14002. HAVA anticipated that States would change or update their plans from time to time pursuant to Section 254(a)(11) through (13) and, thus, requires the EAC to publish such updates in the Federal Register. In accordance with HAVA Section 254(a)(12), all the State plans submitted for publication provide information on how the respective State succeeded in carrying out its previous State plan.

    West Virginia confirms that its amendments to the State plan were developed and submitted to public comment in accordance with HAVA Sections 254(a)(11), 255, and 256. (52 U.S.C. 21004-21006).

    Upon the expiration of thirty days from May 30, 2018, the State is eligible to implement the changes addressed in the plan that is published herein, in accordance with HAVA Section 254(a)(11)(C). EAC wishes to acknowledge the effort that went into revising this State plan and encourages further public comment, in writing, to the State election official listed below.

    Chief State Election Official

    Mr. Donald Kersey, III, Elections Director & Deputy Legal Counsel, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard E, State Capital Room 157-K, Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0770. (304) 558-6000 Fax: (304) 588-0900.

    Thank you for your interest in improving the voting process in America.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Bryan Whitener, Director of National Clearinghouse on Elections, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11498 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-71-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case No. 2017-008] Notice of Petition for Waiver of National Comfort Products, Inc. (NCP) From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from NCP seeking an exemption from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps. NCP seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing certain basic models identified in its petition. According to NCP, the basic models of space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump units listed in its petition are designed and intended to be sold exclusively with NCP's NCPAH-A series or other blower-coil indoor units with electronically commutated (“ECM”) motors. These efficient blower-coil indoor units operate at much lower wattage than the default required by the DOE test procedure. As such, the current DOE test procedure does not result in representative ratings for these basic models. NCP seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate their basic models paired only with air handler indoor units (i.e., blower coil indoor units). This notice also announces that DOE grants NCP an interim waiver from the DOE central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure for its specified basic models, subject to use of the alternative test procedure as set forth in the Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning NCP's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the NCP Petition until June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by case number “2017-008” and Docket number “EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0030,” by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the case number [Case No. 2017-008] in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    Postal Mail: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Petition for Waiver Case No. 2017-008, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    The docket web page can be found https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0030. The docket web page will contain simple instruction on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected]

    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Authority

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which includes central air conditioners and heat pumps.2 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B requires the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M (referred to in this notice as “appendix M”).

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated as Part A.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA), Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

    DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).

    The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2).

    II. NCP's Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and Application for Interim Waiver

    On March 20, 2017, NCP filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the CAC and HP test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M. According to NCP, basic models of space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump outdoor units listed in its petition 3 are designed and intended to be sold with NCP's NCPAH-A series or other blower-coil indoor units with electronically commutated (“ECM”) motors. These efficient blower-coil indoor units operate at much lower wattage than the default required by the DOE test procedure. As such, the current DOE test procedure does not result in a representative rating for these basic models. NCP seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate using their space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump basic models paired only with blower-coil indoor units.

    3 The specific basic models for which the petition applies are central air conditioner basic models NCPE-418-1010, NCPE-418-3010, NCPE-418-4010, NCPE-418-5010, NCPE-424-1010, NCPE-424-3010, NCPE-424-4010, NCPE-424-5010, NCPE-430-1010, NCPE-430-3010, NCPE-430-4010, NCPE-430-5010. These basic model names were provided by NCP in its March 2017 petition.

    NCP also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).

    III. Requested Alternate Test Procedure

    EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by NCP in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    As an alternate test procedure, NCP proposes that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, as applicable, except for the requirement under 10 CFR 429.16 that represented values for each model of outdoor unit be determined based on testing with a model of a coil-only indoor unit that is the least efficient indoor unit distributed in commerce with that particular outdoor unit. Instead, NCP requests that the specified basic models be tested and representations be determined by pairing the models only with blower-coil indoor units.

    IV. Summary of Grant of an Interim Waiver

    On May 30, 2017, NCP submitted supplemental materials to their original petition consisting of public-facing materials (e.g., marketing materials, product specification sheets, and installation manuals) that include language consistent with their assertion that the basic models listed in its petition are distributed to be installed exclusively with blower-coil indoor units that incorporate high-efficiency fan motors.

    In addition to the material submitted by NCP, DOE conducted a review of NCP's other public-facing materials including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, installation manuals, other consumer facing disclosures, etc. to confirm that these materials support NCP's assertions set forth in the petition about how they distribute the specified basic models in commerce. The public-facing materials that DOE found state that these basic models are compatible with NCP air handlers or certain other air handlers with ECM motors (combinations that are rated in the DOE Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) database) and that any combinations not rated in the DOE CCMS database will require factory testing and listing with DOE. DOE's review also indicates that NCP does not market the basic models for sale with indoor units that do not have electronically commutated fan motors. All materials reviewed by DOE can be found in the docket. DOE understands from NCP's petition that, absent an interim waiver, NCP's specified models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate test procedure suggested by NCP and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the efficiency of these specified models, while alleviating the testing problems associated with NCP's implementation of CAC and HP testing. DOE has determined that NCP's petition for waiver will likely be granted and that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant NCP immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.

    For the reasons stated above, DOE has granted NCP's application for interim waiver for its specified basic models of space constrained central air conditioners and heat pumps. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.

    Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:

    (1) NCP must test and rate the CAC and HP basic models listed in paragraph (A) with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).

    (A) NCPE-418-1010, NCPE-418-3010, NCPE-418-4010, NCPE-418-5010, NCPE-424-1010, NCPE-424-3010, NCPE-424-4010, NCPE-424-5010, NCPE-430-1010, NCPE-430-3010, NCPE-430-4010, NCPE-430-5010.

    (2) The applicable method of test for the NCP basic models listed in subparagraph (1)(A) is the test procedure for CAC and HP prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except the determination of represented value requirements and units required for test per 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(2)(i) shall be as detailed below. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 429.16 remain applicable.

    In 429.16(a), Determination of Represented Value:

    (1) Required represented values for single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. Determine the represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW,OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for the individual models/combinations (or “tested combinations”) specified in the following table.

    Category Equipment subcategory Required represented values Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit (Distributed in Commerce by OUM) Single-Split System Space-Constrained AC with Single-Stage or Two-Stage Compressor Every individual combination distributed in commerce, including all coil-only and blower coil combinations. For each model of outdoor unit, this must include the least efficient combination distributed in commerce with the particular model of outdoor unit.

    In 429.16(b), Units tested:

    (2) Individual model/combination selection for testing of single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. (i) The table identifies the minimum testing requirements for each basic model that includes multiple individual models/combinations; if a basic model spans multiple categories or subcategories listed in the table, multiple testing requirements apply. For each basic model that includes only one individual model/combination, test that individual model/combination.

    Category Equipment subcategory Must test: With: Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit (Distributed in Commerce by an OUM) Single-Split System Space-Constrained AC with a Single-Stage or Two-Stage Compressor The model of outdoor unit A model of indoor unit.

    (3) Representations. NCP is permitted to make representations about the efficiency of basic models that meet the requirements of paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that the basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.16 and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M.

    (4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (k).

    (5) This interim waiver is issued to NCP on the condition that: (1) The statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid, (2) NCP continues to distribute the specified basic models for exclusive installation with air-handler units that include electronically commutated motors, (3) All public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, nameplates, etc., make no representations that these basic models be installed in any other way; and (4) All public-facing materials state “Please consult the DOE CCMS data base [link to DOE CCMS database] for a list of rated combinations of indoor and outdoor units. Combinations of outdoor and indoor units that are not rated will require factory testing and listing with DOE. Please consult the factory.” DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, the above listed conditions are not met, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics.

    (6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release NCP from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429, other than those explicitly stated in paragraph (2).

    DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. NCP may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of central air conditioners and heat pumps. Alternatively, if appropriate, NCP may request that this interim waiver (or subsequent waiver, if applicable) be extended to additional basic models employing the same technology as basic models specifically set out in this petition (see 10 CFR 430.27(g)).

    IV. Summary and Request for Comments

    Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of NCP's petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models and announces DOE's decision to grant NCP an interim waiver from the test procedure for the basic models listed in NCP's petition. DOE is publishing NCP's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of NCP's specified space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 29, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation and rating methodology. DOE also seeks comment and data on NCP's assertion that it exclusively distributes the space constrained air conditioner and heat pump basic models as blower-coil installations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Jean-Cyril Walker, Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001.

    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

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

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P EN30MY18.015 EN30MY18.016 EN30MY18.017 EN30MY18.018
    [FR Doc. 2018-11542 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case No. 2017-010] Notice of Petition for Waiver of AeroSys Inc. (AeroSys) From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for waiver, grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from AeroSys seeking an exemption from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps. AeroSys seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing certain basic models identified in its petition. According to AeroSys, testing the basic models of space constrained central air conditioners and heat pump units listed in its petition exclusively with coil-only indoor units (as required by the DOE test procedure), rather than with blower-coil indoor units (as they are distributed in commerce), will overstate their energy usage. Energy usage of coil-only tests for these models will be overstated because the default value for wattage required by the DOE coil-only test method exceeds the actual wattage of the high-efficiency motors used in the blower-coil indoor units with which the AeroSys models listed in its petition are paired in the field. AeroSys seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate their basic models listed in its petition. AeroSys proposes to waive the DOE test procedure requirement to test these basic models with coil-only indoor units and instead, test with blower-coil indoor units in accordance with 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, as applicable. This notice also announces that DOE grants AeroSys an interim waiver from the DOE central air conditioners and heat pumps test procedure for its specified basic models, subject to use of the alternative test procedure as set forth in the Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning AeroSys' petition and its suggested alternate test procedure.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the AeroSys Petition until June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by case number “2017-010” and Docket number “EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0042”, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]. Include the case number [Case No. 2017-010] in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    Postal Mail: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Petition for Waiver Case No. 2017-010, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0042-0001. The docket web page will contain simple instruction on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected].

    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Authority

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which includes central air conditioners and heat pumps.2 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B requires the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M (referred to in this notice as “appendix M”).

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated as Part A.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the EPS Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 11-115 (January 12, 2018).

    DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

    DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).

    The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2).

    AeroSys' Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and Application for Interim Waiver

    On May 29, 2017, AeroSys filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the CAC and HP test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M. AeroSys' request for a prospective waiver from certain provisions in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M1, which is the test procedure applicable to central air conditioners and heat pumps after January 1, 2023, is premature and will not be considered by DOE at this time. Once compliance is required with appendix M1, AeroSys is free to submit any application for a waiver from the test procedure it believes necessary, and DOE will consider that application at such time.

    According to AeroSys, testing the space constrained basic models listed in its petition 3 with coil-only indoor units (as required by the DOE test procedure), rather than with blower-coil indoor units (as they are distributed in commerce), will overstate their energy usage. Energy usage of coil-only tests for these models will be overstated because the default value for wattage required by the DOE coil-only test method exceeds the actual wattage of the high-efficiency motors used in the blower-coil indoor units with which the AeroSys models listed in its petition are paired in the field. AeroSys seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate the basic models listed in its petition. AeroSys proposes to waive the DOE test procedure requirement to test these basic models with coil-only indoor units and instead, test with blower-coil indoor units in accordance with 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, as applicable.

    3 The specific basic models for which the petition applies are central air conditioner basic models THDC-18PGA, THDC-18PGB, THDC-18RGA, THDC-18SGB, THDC-18TGB, THDC-24PGA, THDC-24PGB, THDC-24RGA, THDC-24SGB, THDC-24TGB, THDC-30PGB, THDC-30RGA, THDC-30SGB, THDC-30TGB, TTWC-R18P21, TTWC-R18R21, TTWC-R18S21, TTWC-R18T21, TTWC-R24P21, TTWC-R24R21, TTWC-R24S21, TTWC-R24T21, TTWC-R30P21, TTWC-R30R21, TTWC-R30S21, TTWC-R30T21, TTWH-R18H21, TTWH-R24H21, TTWH-R30H21, TTWC-R36H21. These basic model names were provided by AeroSys in its May 2017 petition.

    AeroSys also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).

    Requested Alternate Test Procedure

    EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by AeroSys in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    As an alternate test procedure, AeroSys proposes that the basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, as applicable, except for the requirement under 10 CFR 429.16 that represented values for each model of outdoor unit be determined based on testing with a model of a coil-only indoor unit that is the least efficient indoor unit distributed in commerce with that particular outdoor unit. Instead, AeroSys requests that the specified basic models be tested and representations be determined by pairing the models only with blower-coil indoor units.

    Summary of Grant an Interim Waiver

    DOE conducted a review of AeroSys' public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, installation manuals, other consumer facing disclosures, etc. to confirm that these materials support AeroSys' assertions set forth in the petition about how they distribute the specified basic models in commerce. The public-facing materials that DOE found state that these models are “sold and intended for use only with blower coil indoor units,” “AeroSys is not responsible for the performance and operation of a mismatched system,” and “Installers are encouraged to match to air handlers that are approved by AeroSys and listed in the [CCMS/AHRI] database.” All materials reviewed by DOE can be found in the docket. DOE understands from AeroSys' petition that, absent an interim waiver, AeroSys' specified models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate test procedure suggested by AeroSys and concludes that it will allow for the accurate measurement of the efficiency of these specified models, while alleviating the testing problems associated with AeroSys' implementation of CAC and HP testing. DOE has determined that AeroSys' petition for waiver will likely be granted and that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant AeroSys immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.

    For the reasons stated, DOE has granted AeroSys' application for interim waiver for its specified basic models of space constrained central air conditioners and heat pumps. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.

    Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:

    (1) AeroSys must test and rate the CAC and HP basic models listed in paragraph (A) with the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2):

    (A) THDC-18PGA, THDC-18PGB, THDC-18RGA, THDC-18SGB, THDC-18TGB, THDC-24PGA, THDC-24PGB, THDC-24RGA, THDC-24SGB, THDC-24TGB, THDC-30PGB, THDC-30RGA, THDC-30SGB, THDC-30TGB, TTWC-R18P21, TTWC-R18R21, TTWC-R18S21, TTWC-R18T21, TTWC-R24P21, TTWC-R24R21, TTWC-R24S21, TTWC-R24T21, TTWC-R30P21, TTWC-R30R21, TTWC-R30S21, TTWC-R30T21, TTWH-R18H21, TTWH-R24H21, TTWH-R30H21, TTWC-R36H21

    (2) The applicable method of test for the AeroSys basic models listed in paragraph (1)(A) is the test procedure for CAC and HP prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except the determination of represented value requirements and units required for test per 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(2)(i) shall be as detailed below. All other requirements of 10 CFR part 429.16 remain applicable.

    In 429.16(a), Determination of Represented Value:

    (1) Required represented values for single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. Determine the represented values (including SEER, EER, HSPF, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW, OFF, cooling capacity, and heating capacity, as applicable) for the individual models/combinations (or “tested combinations”) specified in the following table.

    Category Equipment subcategory Required represented values Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit (Distributed in Commerce by OUM) Single-Split System Space-Constrained AC with Single-Stage or Two-Stage Compressor Every individual combination distributed in commerce, including all coil-only and blower coil combinations. For each model of outdoor unit, this must include the least efficient combination distributed in commerce with the particular model of outdoor unit.

    In 429.16(b), Units tested:

    (2) Individual model/combination selection for testing of single-split system space-constrained AC with single-stage or two-stage compressor. (i) The table identifies the minimum testing requirements for each basic model that includes multiple individual models/combinations; if a basic model spans multiple categories or subcategories listed in the table, multiple testing requirements apply. For each basic model that includes only one individual model/combination, test that individual model/combination.

    Category Equipment subcategory Must test: With: Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit (Distributed in Commerce by OUM) Single-Split System Space-Constrained AC with Single-Stage or Two-Stage Compressor The model of outdoor unit A model of indoor unit.

    (3) Representations. AeroSys is permitted to make representations about the efficiency of the basic model listed in paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that the basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.16 and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M.

    (4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (k).

    (5) This interim waiver is issued to AeroSys on the condition that: (1) The statements, representations, test data, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid, (2) AeroSys continues to distribute the specified basic models for exclusive installation with blower-coil indoor units; (3) All public-facing materials, including websites, marketing materials, product spec sheets, labels, nameplates, etc., make no representations that these basic models be installed in any other way; and (4) All public-facing materials state that these models are: “sold and intended for use only with blower coil indoor units. AeroSys is not responsible for the performance and operation of a mismatched system. Installers are encouraged to match to air handlers that are approved by AeroSys and listed in the [CCMS/AHRI] database.” DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, the above listed conditions are not met, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics.

    (6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release AeroSys from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429, other than those explicitly stated in paragraph (2).

    DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. AeroSys may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of central air conditioners and heat pumps. Alternatively, if appropriate, AeroSys may request that this interim waiver (or subsequent waiver, if applicable) be extended to additional basic models employing the same technology as basic models specifically set out in this petition (see 10 CFR 430.27(g)).

    Summary and Request for Comments

    Through this notice, DOE announces receipt of AeroSys' petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for certain basic models and announces DOE's decision to grant AeroSys an interim waiver from the test procedure for the basic models listed in AeroSys' petition. DOE is publishing AeroSys' petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of AeroSys' specified space constrained central air conditioner and heat pump basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 29, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the suggested alternate test procedure and calculation and rating methodology. DOE also seeks comment and data on AeroSys' assertion that it exclusively distributes the space constrained air conditioner and heat pump basic models as blower-coil installations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Scott Blake Harris, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

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

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Before the United States Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585

    In the Matter of Energy Efficiency Program: Test Procedure for Testing Space-Constrained Trough-the-Wall Condensing Units, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004; RIN 1904-AB94.

    Petition of AeroSys Inc. for Waiver of Test Procedure for Space-Constrained Through-the-Wall Condensing Units

    AeroSys Inc. respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver 1 of the Department of Energy's (DOE) test procedure for testing space-constrained through-the-wall (TTW) condensing units.2

    1See 10 CFR 430.27 (waiver and interim waiver).

    2Id. Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix M (test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps).

    AeroSys is a small American manufacturer of air conditioning equipment, including space- constrained TTW condensing units. It is located at 929 Eldridge Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740. Phone: (301) 620-0002; fax: (301) 620-0685; http://www.aerosysinc.com.

    The space-constrained TTW condensing units listed in Appendix I meet the criteria for a waiver.3 The inclusion of coil-only tests in conjunction with these space-constrained TTW condensing units will evaluate these basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. DOE “will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements” in these circumstances.4

    3Id. § 430.27(f)(2).

    4Id.

    Indeed, DOE has already recognized this specific situation and has solicited waiver requests to resolve it.5

    5 FR 1427, 1462 (Jan. 5, 2017).

    AeroSys asks that a waiver be granted to allow it to use an alternate test procedure that provides for testing these basic models with blower coil testing instead of coil-only tests. This will more accurately measure the energy consumption of these products.

    I. Basic Models for Which a Waiver is Requested

    The basic models for which a waiver is requested are the models set forth in Appendix I. They are manufactured by AeroSys in the United States and are distributed in commerce under the AeroSys brand name.

    II. Need for the Requested Waiver

    AeroSys manufactures space-constrained TTW condensing units. These products are beneficial in a number of special settings, such as multi-story residential applications with limited space. AeroSys' models are certified for use with high efficiency blower coil indoor units (air handlers).

    Due to the space-constrained nature of the TTW condensing units, they are sold and intended for use only with high efficiency blower coil indoor units fitted with ECM motors. At no time has AeroSys sold these models with anything other than blower coil indoor units. This is clearly stated in AeroSys' public-facing materials. For example, a sales brochure states:

    AeroSys TTWC-R**H Series units are sold and intended for use only with blower coil indoor units. To see a list of approved air handlers please go to www.aerosysinc.com/certified-ratings. 6

    6 See AeroSys Sales Brochure, Thru-The-Wall TTWC-R Series Condensing Unit Catalog, 1-1/2 To 2-1/2 Ton Capacity, at http://www.aerosysinc.com/files/170523%20SALES%20LIT/TTWC-Condensing%20Unit%201.5%20TO%202.5%20TON%20CATALOG%20R170526.pdf.

    Such statements also are on the AeroSys website 7 and in Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Manuals.8

    7 See http://www.aerosysinc.com/products/1/thru-the-wall-condensing-1-to-25-ton.

    8 See AeroSys Installation Operation and Maintenance Manual, TTWC Series Through-The-Wall Condensing Units, at http://www.aerosysinc.com/files/IOM%20TTW%20R170524/TTWC-R()X%20IOM%201.5%20TO%202.5%20TON%20R052317.pdf.

    Testing these models with coil-only combinations, rather than in the intended manner with blower coil indoor units, will overstate energy usage and thus would not reflect the models' true energy characteristics. That is because the default value for wattage in coil-only testing exceeds the actual wattage of the high efficiency motors used in the AeroSys models.

    DOE has addressed this situation and recently solicited waiver requests to deal with it.9 DOE acknowledged that the text of its current regulations does not provide for an exclusion for coil-only testing for blower coil indoor units. It then solicited waiver requests to remedy the problem:

    9 82 Fed. Reg. at 1462.

    If a manufacturer believes that coil-only testing of a product is not appropriate because the basic model is only sold and installed exclusively with blower coil indoor units, the manufacturer may petition DOE for a test procedure waiver showing that installation is exclusively blower coil and requesting a blower coil test. This reasoning applies squarely to AeroSys' situation. AeroSys has conferred with DOE about applying for a waiver.

    Requiring testing of the models in Appendix I with coil-only combinations will effectively eliminate such products due to the default value for wattage in coil-only testing. It will cause grave economic hardship for AeroSys—jeopardizing the company's viability. It will also create substantial difficulty for the housing industry, which will be deprived of these beneficial products.

    III. Proposed Alternate Test Procedure.

    AeroSys proposes the following alternate test procedure to evaluate the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I.

    AeroSys shall be required to test the performance of the basic models listed in Appendix I according to the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 C.F.R. part 430, subpart B, Appendix M or Appendix M1 (when effective), as applicable, except as follows:

    The basic models shall not be subject to coil-only testing or rating and shall instead be tested using a blower-coil test in accordance with 10 C.F.R. part 430, subpart B, Appendix M or Appendix M1 (when effective), as applicable. The waiver should continue until DOE adopts an applicable amended test procedure.

    IV. Request for Interim Waiver.

    AeroSys also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the foregoing basic models. DOE “will grant an interim waiver” if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver.8 AeroSys warrants an interim waiver under these criteria.

    8Id. § 430.27(e)(2).

    The petition for waiver is likely to be granted, as evidenced by its merits. And immediate relief is warranted based on public policy reasons. Without waiver relief, AeroSys will be subject to requirements that should not apply to such products. These useful products will be effectively eliminated, causing grave economic hardship for AeroSys and negative effects for housing.

    V. Other Manufacturers.

    A list of manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AeroSys to incorporate design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition is set forth in Appendix II.

    VI. Conclusion.

    DOE should grant AeroSys the requested waiver and interim waiver for the models listed in Appendix I. Further, AeroSys requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application. It is also willing to provide promptly any additional information the Department thinks it needs to act with expedition.

    Respectfully submitted, Scott Blake Harris John A. Hodges Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 1919 M Street NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 (202) 730-1330 Counsel to AeroSys Inc. May 29, 2017 APPENDIX I

    The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following basic models.

    THDC-18PGA, THDC-18PGB, THDC-18RGA, THDC-18SGB, THDC-18TGB, THDC-24PGA, THDC-24PGB, THDC-24RGA, THDC-24SGB, THDC-24TGB, THDC-30PGB, THDC-30RGA, THDC-30SGB, THDC-30TGB, TTWC-R18P21, TTWC-R18R21, TTWC-R18S21, TTWC-R18T21, TTWC-R24P21, TTWC-R24R21, TTWC-R24S21, TTWC-R24T21, TTWC-R30P21, TTWC-R30R21, TTWC-R30S21, TTWC-R30T21, TTWH-R18H21, TTWH-R24H21, TTWH-R30H21, TTWC-R36H21

    APPENDIX II

    The following are manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AeroSys to incorporate design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition for waiver.

    First Co. National Comfort Products
    [FR Doc. 2018-11543 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case No. 2017-013] Notice of Petition for Waiver of GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd. From the Department of Energy Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd. (GD Midea) seeking a waiver from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the efficiency of central air conditioners (CACs) and heat pumps (HPs). GD Midea seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing certain basic models identified in its petition. According to GD Midea, the appendix M test procedure does not include a method for testing specified CAC and HP basic models that use variable-speed compressors and are matched with a coil-only indoor unit (hereafter referred to as “variable-speed coil-only single-split systems”). GD Midea requests that it be permitted to test its variable-speed coil-only single-split systems with the cooling full-load air volume rate used as both the cooling intermediate and minimum air volume rates, and the heating full-load air volume rate used as the heating intermediate air volume rate. This notice announces that DOE grants GD Midea an interim waiver from the DOE CAC and HP test procedure for its specified basic models, subject to use of the alternate test procedure as set forth in the Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning GD Midea's petition and the alternate test procedure.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the GD Midea petition until June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by case number “2017-013” and Docket number “EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0060,” by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the case number [Case No. 2017-013] in the subject line of the message.

    Postal Mail: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Petition for Waiver Case No. 2017-013, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V of this document.

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0060. The docket web page contains instruction on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-5B, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email: [email protected]

    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Authority

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which includes central air conditioners and heat pumps.2 Part B includes definitions, test procedures, labeling provisions, energy conservation standards, and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. Further, Part B requires the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps is contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M (referred to in this notice as “appendix M”).

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated as Part A.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the EPS Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 115-115 (January 12, 2018).

    DOE's regulations set forth at 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that allow a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model of a covered product when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii).

    DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).

    The waiver process also allows DOE to grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2).

    II. GD Midea's Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure and Application for Interim Waiver

    On October 27, 2017, GD Midea filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the CAC and HP test procedure set forth in appendix M. According to GD Midea, appendix M does not include provisions for determining cooling intermediate air volume rate, cooling minimum air volume rate, and heating intermediate air volume rate for its variable-speed coil-only single-split systems. Consequently, GD Midea cannot test or rate these systems in accordance with the DOE test procedure. GD Midea stated that its variable-speed outdoor units are non-communicative systems (i.e., the outdoor unit does not communicate with the indoor unit) for which compressor speed varies based only on controls located on the outdoor unit and the indoor unit maintains a constant indoor blower fan speed.

    GD Midea seeks to use an alternate test procedure to test and rate specific CAC and HP basic models of its variable-speed coil-only single-split systems, which would specify the use of cooling full-load air volume rates as determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c of appendix M as cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and would specify the use of heating full-load air volume rates as determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a of appendix M as heating intermediate air volume rate.

    GD Midea also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. An interim waiver may be granted if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2).

    DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, the specified variable-speed coil-only single-split models that are subject of the waiver cannot be tested under the existing test procedure because appendix M does not include provisions for determining certain air volume rates for variable-speed coil-only single-split systems. Typical variable-speed single-split systems have a communicating system, i.e., the outdoor units and indoor units communicate and indoor unit air flow varies based on the operation of the outdoor unit. However, as presented in GD Midea's petition, its variable-speed outdoor units are non-communicative systems and the indoor blower section maintains a constant indoor blower fan speed.

    III. Requested Alternate Test Procedure

    EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by GD Midea in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    In its petition, GD Midea requests that specified basic models listed in the petition be tested according to the test procedure for central CACs and HPs prescribed by DOE at appendix M, except that for coil-only systems, the cooling full-load air volume rate is also used as the cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and the heating full-load air volume rate is used as the heating intermediate air volume rate.

    IV. Summary of Grant of an Interim Waiver

    DOE has reviewed GD Midea's petition for interim waiver, the alternate procedure requested by GD Midea, and public-facing materials (e.g., marketing materials, product specification sheets, and installation manuals) for the units identified in its petition. The public-facing materials that DOE reviewed support GD Midea's assertion that the units it identifies are installed as variable-speed coil-only systems, in which the indoor fan speed remains constant at full and part-load operation. Since there is no variability in indoor fan speed, using the cooling full-load air volume rate for the cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and the heating full load air volume rate as the heating intermediate air volume rate appears appropriate. Based on this review, the alternate test procedure appears to allow for the accurate measurement of efficiency of these products, while alleviating the testing problems associated with GD Midea's implementation of CAC and HP testing for the basic models specified in GD Midea's petition. Consequently, GD Midea's petition for waiver will likely be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant GD Midea immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. For the reasons stated above, DOE has granted an interim waiver to GD Midea for the specified CAC and HP basic models in GD Midea's petition.

    Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:

    (1) GD Midea must test and rate the GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd brand and Bosch Thermotechnology Corp brand single-split CAC and HP basic models MOVA-36HDN1-M18M and MOVA-60HDN1-M18M (which contain individual combinations that each consist of an outdoor unit that uses a variable speed compressor matched with a coil-only indoor unit, and is designed to operate as part of a non-communicative system in which the compressor speed varies based only on controls located in the outdoor unit and the indoor blower unit maintains a constant indoor blower fan speed), using the alternate test procedure set forth in paragraph (2).

    GD Midea basic models MOVA-36HDN1-M18M and MOVA-60HDN1-M18M include the following individual combinations listed by brand name:

    GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., LTD (Brand) Basic model No. Outdoor unit Indoor unit Bosch Thermotechnology Corp (Brand) Basic model No. Outdoor unit Indoor unit MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MC**2430ANTF MOVA-36HDN1-M18M BOVA-36HDN1-M18M BMA*2430ANTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MC**2430BNTF MOVA-36HDN1-M18M BOVA-36HDN1-M18M BMA*2430BNTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MC**3036ANTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M BOVA-36HDN1-M18M BMA*3036ANTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MC**3036BNTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M BOVA-36HDN1-M18M BMA*3036BNTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MOVA-36HDN1-M18M MC**3036CNTD MOVA-36HDN1-M18M BOVA-36HDN1-M18M BMA*3036CNTD MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MC**4248BNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M BOVA-60HDN1-M18M BMA*4248BNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MC**4248CNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M BOVA-60HDN1-M18M BMA*4248CNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MC**4248DNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M BOVA-60HDN1-M18M BMA*4248DNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MC**4860CNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M BOVA-60HDN1-M18M BMA*4860CNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MOVA-60HDN1-M18M MC**4860DNTF MOVA-60HDN1-M18M BOVA-60HDN1-M18M BMA*4860DNTF

    (2) The applicable method of test for the GD Midea basic models identified in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for CACs and HPs prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, except that, for coil-only combinations: The cooling full-load air volume rate as determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c of appendix M shall also be used as the cooling intermediate and cooling minimum air volume rates, and the heating full-load air volume rate as determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a of appendix M shall also be used as the heating intermediate air volume rate, as detailed below. All other requirements of appendix M and DOE's regulations remain applicable.

    In 3.1.4.2, Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate, include:

    f. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the cooling minimum air volume rate is the same as the cooling full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c.

    In 3.1.4.3, Cooling Intermediate Air Volume Rate, include:

    d. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the cooling intermediate air volume rate is the same as the cooling full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.1.1.c.

    In 3.1.4.6, Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rate, include:

    d. For ducted variable-speed compressor systems tested with a coil-only indoor unit, the heating intermediate air volume rate is the same as the heating full-load air volume rate determined in section 3.1.4.4.1.a.

    (3) Representations. GD Midea is permitted to make representations about the efficiency of basic models that meet the requirements of paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that the basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR 429.16 and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M.

    (4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(h) and (k).

    (5) This interim waiver is issued to GC Midea on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by the petitioner are valid. If GD Midea makes any modifications to the controls or configurations of these basic models, the waiver would no longer be valid and GD Midea would either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.

    (6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release GD Midea from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

    DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future basic models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. GD Midea may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of central air conditioners and heat pumps. Alternatively, if appropriate, GD Midea may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(g).

    V. Request for Comments

    DOE is publishing GD Midea's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition did not identify any information as confidential business information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of GD Midea's specified CAC and HP basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 29, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Jack Wang, Certification Engineer, GD Midea Heating & Ventilating Equipment Co., Ltd., Midea Industrial City, Beijiao, Shunde District Foshan, Guangdong, P.R.C. 528311, [email protected]

    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

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

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P EN30MY18.019 EN30MY18.020 EN30MY18.021 EN30MY18.022 EN30MY18.023 EN30MY18.024
    [FR Doc. 2018-11544 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC18-8-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-716); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-716, Good Faith Requests for Transmission Service and Good Faith Responses by Transmitting Utilities Under Sections 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously published a Notice in the Federal Register on 2/7/2018 requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-716 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0170, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-8528.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC18-8-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-716, Good Faith Requests for Transmission Service and Good Faith Responses by Transmitting Utilities Under Sections 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0170.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-716 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the requirements of FERC-716 to implement the statutory provisions of sections 211 and section 213 of the Federal Power Act as amended and added by the Energy Policy Act 1992. FERC-716 also includes the requirement to file a section 211 request if the negotiations between the transmission requestor and the transmitting utility are unsuccessful. For the initial process, the information is not filed with the Commission. However, the request and response may be analyzed as a part of a section 211 action. The Commission may order transmission services under the authority of FPA 211.

    The Commission's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 18 CFR 2.20, provide standards by which the Commission determines if and when a valid good faith request for transmission has been made under section 211 of the FPA. By developing the standards, the Commission sought to encourage an open exchange of data with a reasonable degree of specificity and completeness between the party requesting transmission services and the transmitting utility. As a result, 18 CFR 2.20 identifies 12 components of a good faith estimate and 5 components of a reply to a good faith request.

    Type of Respondents: Transmission Requestors and Transmitting Utilities.

    Estimate of Annual Burden 1 : The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    1 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    2 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $76.50 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The cost per hour figure is the FERC 2017 average salary plus benefits. Subject matter experts found that industry employment costs closely resemble FERC's regarding the FERC-716 information collection.

    FERC-716 [Good Faith Requests for Transmission Service and Good Faith Responses by Transmitting Utilities Under Sections 211(a) and 213(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)] Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average burden &
  • cost per response 2
  • Total annual
  • burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Information exchange between parties 3 1 3 100 hrs.; $7,650 300 hrs.; $22,950 $7,650 Application submitted to FERC if parties' negotiations are unsuccessful 3 1 3 2.5 hrs.; $191.25 7.5 hrs.; $573.75 191.25 Total 6 307.5 hrs.; $23,523.75 7,841.25

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 22, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11523 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1016-003.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Illinois Commerce Commission.

    Description: Settlement Agreement Compliance Filing of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., the Illinois Commerce Commission, and Exelon Corporation, on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 5/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180517-5038.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2400-004.

    Applicants: SP Butler Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: SP Butler Solar MBR Tariff Compliance Filing to be effective 5/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5228.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2401-004.

    Applicants: SP Decatur Parkway Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: SP Decatur Parkway Solar MBR Tariff Compliance Filing to be effective 5/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2403-004.

    Applicants: SP Pawpaw Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: SP Pawpaw Solar MBR Tariff Compliance Filing to be effective 5/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2404-004.

    Applicants: SP Sandhills Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: SP Sandhills Solar MBR Tariff Compliance Filing to be effective 5/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2453-001.

    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Imperial Valley Solar 3, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-865-002.

    Applicants: Power 52 Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Power52 MBRA to be effective 4/17/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1665-000.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TCEC Section 20 Filing to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5225

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1666-000.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCPSA CIAC to be effective 7/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1667-000.

    Applicants: Antelope Expansion 2, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Antelope Expansion 2 MBR Tariff to be effective 5/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1668-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO 205 filing of EDR tariff revisions to be effective 7/22/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1669-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-05-22_SA 3115 LCM-ELL GIA (C042) to be effective 6/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1670-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil Holdco, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5040

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1671-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil Power I, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1672-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil Power II, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1673-000.

    Applicants: Avista Corporation.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of multiple Enabling Service Agreements (No. 83, et al.) of Avista Corporation.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5299.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11515 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PL18-1-000] Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

    ACTION:

    Order extending time for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In this order, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) extends the comment due date for the Notice of Inquiry (NOI) published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, April 25, 2018. The NOI is seeking information and stakeholder perspectives to help the Commission explore whether, and if so how, it should revise its approach under its currently effective policy statement on the certification of new natural gas transportation facilities to determine whether a proposed natural gas project is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity, as that standard is established in section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.

    DATES:

    Comments are extended to July 25, 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 the Notice of Inquiry (83 FR 18020, 18032 (Apr. 25, 2018)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Chandler (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-6699 Maggie Suter (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-6463 Caroline Wozniak (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8931 Brian White (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8332 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Order Extending Time for Comments

    1. On April 19, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking information and stakeholder perspectives to help the Commission explore whether, and if so how, it should revise its approach under its currently effective policy statement on the certification of new natural gas transportation facilities (Policy Statement) to determine whether a proposed natural gas project is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity, as that standard is established in section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.1

    1Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities, Notice of Inquiry (NOI), 163 FERC ¶ 61,042 (April 19, 2018).

    2. In the NOI, the Commission sought input on whether, and if so how, the Commission should adjust: (1) Its methodology for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project, including the Commission's consideration of precedent agreements and contracts for service as evidence of such need; (2) its consideration of the potential exercise of eminent domain and of landowner interests related to a proposed project; and (3) its evaluation of the environmental impact of a proposed project. The Commission also sought input on whether there are specific changes the Commission could consider implementing to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its certificate processes including pre-filing, post-filing, and post-order issuance. The Commission granted 60 days from the date of the publication of the NOI in the Federal Register to file comments with the Commission. The NOI was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2018 with comments due June 25, 2018.

    3. As we stated in the NOI, 19 years have passed since the Commission issued the Policy Statement. Since that time, we have seen significant changes in the energy markets, as well as in the production, use and consumption of natural gas. In the NOI, the Commission asked a series of questions to elicit information to develop a good record on which to decide any future action in this matter, and many of those questions identify complex issues. The Commission believes our work on this matter will benefit from a robust record and as much relevant information and thoughtful input as possible. Indeed, it is important that we base any next steps on the best available information, and we encourage input from stakeholders across the energy spectrum. Given the complexity of the issues, and our desire to ensure the best possible record, the Commission has decided to extend the time for interested entities to submit their comments in this matter by 30 days—to July 25, 2018.2

    2 As the Commission indicated in the NOI, the Commission will decide any next steps with regard to this review of the Policy Statement after the Commission has reviewed the comments filed in response to the NOI. NOI P 4.

    The Commission Orders

    The time for interested entities to submit comments in this proceeding is hereby extended 30 days, as discussed in the body of this order.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11527 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-484-000] Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 14, 2018, Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC (MRT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.208(f)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and MRT's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-489-000. MRT requests authorization to decrease the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of its Line A-86 located in Jefferson County, Missouri. The decrease in the MAOP is required to maintain Department of Transportation compliance, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lisa Yoho, Sr. Director Regulatory & FERC Compliance, Enable Mississippi River Transmission, P.O. Box 1336, Houston, Texas 77251 or phone (346) 701-2539 or fax (346) 701-2905 or by email [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11524 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-1667-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Antelope Expansion 2, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Antelope Expansion 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 12, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11518 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD06-6-000] Notice of Joint Meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a joint meeting on Thursday, June 7, 2018 at the headquarters of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The meeting is expected to begin at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at approximately 11:15 a.m. Eastern Time. Members of the public may attend this meeting. Commissioners from both agencies are expected to participate.

    The format for the joint meeting will consist of discussions between the two sets of Commissioners following presentations by their respective staffs. In addition, representatives of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) will attend and participate in this meeting.

    The technical conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. ((202) 347-3700 or 1 (800) 336-6646). There will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with internet access can listen to the conference by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating the technical conference in the Calendar. The technical conference will contain a link to its webcast. The Capital Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, please visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-3100.1

    1 The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website www.ferc.gov for three months after the conference.

    Pre-registration is not required but is highly encouraged for those attending in person. Attendees may register in advance at the following web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/06-07-18-form.asp. Attendees should bring a photo ID and allow time to pass through building security procedures. There is no fee to attend the open meeting.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    Questions about the meeting should be directed to Sarah McKinley at [email protected] or by phone at 202-502-8368.

    Dated: May 22, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11528 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14859-001] Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 14859-001.

    c. Date Filed: March 30, 2018.

    d. Submitted By: Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage Project.

    f. Location: 37 miles northwest of Chino Valley in Yavapai, Coconino, and Mohave Counties, Arizona. One of the three potential transmission line routes could occupy 91.49 acres of the Prescott National Forest.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Brian Studenka, ITC Holdings Corp., 27175 Energy Way, Novi, MI 48377; email [email protected]; (248) 946-3247.

    i. FERC Contact: Kim Nguyen; email [email protected]; (202) 502-6105.

    j. Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on March 30, 2018. Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC provided public notice of its request on April 10, 2018. In a letter dated May 22, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. With this notice, we are designating Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. Big Chino Valley Pumped Storage LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11526 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2718-029; ER10-2719-029.

    Applicants: Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., et al.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2895-018; ER10-2461-015; ER10-2463-014; ER10-2466-015; ER10-2917-018; ER10-2918-019; ER10-2920-018; ER10-2921-018; ER10-2922-018; ER10-2966-018; ER10-3167-010; ER10-3178-010; ER11-2201-018; ER11-2292-019; ER11-2293-019; ER11-2294-017; ER11-2383-013; ER11-3417-013; ER11-3941-016; ER11-3942-018; ER11-4029-014; ER12-1311-014; ER12-161-018; ER12-2068-014; ER12-2447-017; ER12-645-019; ER12-682-015; ER13-1139-017; ER13-1346-009; ER13-1613-011; ER13-17-012; ER13-203-010; ER13-2143-011; ER14-1964-009; ER14-25-014; ER14-2630-010; ER16-287-004.

    Applicants: Alta Wind VIII, LLC, Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, BIF II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC, BIF III Holtwood LLC, Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, Black Bear SO, LLC, Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, Carr Street Generating Station, L.P., Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest Hydro LLC, Mesa Wind Power Corporation, Rumford Falls Hydro LLC, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, Windstar Energy, LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Blue Sky East, LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Erie Wind, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power III, LLC, Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC, Niagara Wind Power, LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Regulus Solar, LLC, Stetson Holdings, LLC, Stetson Wind II, LLC, Vermont Wind, LLC.

    Description: Second Supplement to June 30, 2017 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region of the Brookfield Companies.

    Filed Date: 5/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180516-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-120-007.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance with April 2018 Order—RMR Generator Deactivation Process to be effective 7/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1675-000.

    Applicants: Goldfinch Capital Management, LP.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation to be effective 5/30/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1676-000.

    Applicants: GP Big Island, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: compliance 2018 May to be effective 5/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1677-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits revised IAs SA Nos. 3992 and 3993 to be effective 7/22/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1678-000.

    Applicants: Louisiana Generating LLC.

    Description: Request of Louisiana Generating LLC to recover costs associated with acting as a Local Balancing Authority under MISO Tariff.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5310.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11516 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-832-000.

    Applicants: BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp., Direct Energy Business Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition of BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp., et al. for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release Regulations and Policies.

    Filed Date: 5/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180518-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-815-001.

    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Negotiated & Non-Conf Svc Agmt Amendment—CPV to be effective 6/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5253.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11517 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-6627-002] Notice of Supplemental Filing: Vigue, Peter A.

    Take notice that on May 22, 2018, Peter A. Vigue filed a supplement to the April 24, 2018 filing application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 18 U.S.C. 825d(f), and section 45.4 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR 45.8.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 12, 2018.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11525 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0322; FRL-9974-81-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR)—NESHAP for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1125.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0394—to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 29, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0322, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Beryllium Rocket Motor Fuel Firing were promulgated on April 6, 1973, and amended on both October 17, 2000 and February 27, 2014. The 2014 amendment promulgated technical and editorial corrections for source testing of emissions and operations. These regulations apply to existing and new building, structure, facility, or installation where the static test firing of a beryllium rocket motor and/or the disposal of beryllium propellant is conducted. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of promulgation. Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), as well as the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 61, subpart D. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of beryllium rocket motor fuel firing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61, subpart D).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Total estimated burden: 9 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $997 (per year), which includes neither annualized capital nor operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours or cost in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden. Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11545 Filed 5-29-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9978-49-OECA] See the Item Specific Docket Numbers Provided in the Text; Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; See Item Specific ICR Titles Provided in the Text AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit the below listed information collection requests (ICRs) (See item specific ICR title, EPA ICR Number and OMB Control Number provided in the text) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. These are proposed extensions of 73 currently approved ICRs. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for these ICRs. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICRs to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    General Abstract: For all the listed ICRs in this notice, owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A or part 63, subpart A, as well as the applicable specific standards. This includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    (1) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0069; Title: NESHAP for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1871.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0420; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Polycarbonates production, acrylic and modacrylic fibers production, acetal resins production, and hydrogen fluoride production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart YY).

    Estimated number of respondents: 7 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 3,240 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $317,000, includes $127,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance (O&M) costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (2) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0071; Title: NESHAP for Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1891.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0428; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: POTW located at a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVV).

    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Estimated annual burden: 7 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $790, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (3) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0076; Title: NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commerical Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1954.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0457; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Facilities that perform surface coating of large household and commercial appliances and related parts.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

    Estimated number of respondents: 114 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 36,500 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $4,350,000, includes $680,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (4) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0075; Title: NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1938.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0505; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,126 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 20,900 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $2,120,000, includes $16,900 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (5) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0081; Title: NESHAP for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1976.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0509; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Facilities with reinforced plastic composites production operations and processes.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW).

    Estimated number of respondents: 600 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 20,900 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $2,580,000, includes $476,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (6) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0274; Title: NESHAP for the Wood Products Surface Coating Industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2034.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0510; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Facilities that perform surface coating of wood building products.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ).

    Estimated number of respondents: 232 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 75,800 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $7,880,000, includes $278,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (7) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0077; Title: NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1951.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0511; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Web coating facilities, including web coating lines engaged in the coating of metal webs used in flexible packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ).

    Estimated number of respondents: 251 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 13,800 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $2,390,000, includes $1,010,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (8) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0088; Title: NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2040.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0515; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Refractory products manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS).

    Estimated number of respondents: 8 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 343 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $37,000, includes $3,040 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (9) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0086; Title: NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2027.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0516; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Flexible polyurethane foam fabrication facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM).

    Estimated number of respondents: 17 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 18,900 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $1,930,000, includes $29,500 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (10) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0271; Title: NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2003.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0517; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Sinter plants, blast furnaces, and basic oxygen process furnace shops at integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF).

    Estimated number of respondents: 18 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 18,500 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $1,930,000, includes $67,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (11) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0089; Title: NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2042.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0519; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Semiconductor manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB).

    Estimated number of respondents: 127 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 41 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $4,710, includes $550 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (12) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0087; Title: NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2029.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0520; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLLLL).

    Estimated number of respondents: 27 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 13,400 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $1,480,000, includes $135,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (13) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0084; Title: NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1995.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0521; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Coke oven batteries.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC).

    Estimated number of respondents: 17 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 24,400 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $2,600,000, includes $152,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (14) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0092; Title: NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2071.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0522; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Fabric and textile printing, coating, slashing, dyeing or finishing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO).

    Estimated number of respondents: 146 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 22,400 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $2,260,000, includes $6,750 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (15) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0275; Title: NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2032.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0529; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Hydrochloric acid production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNNN).

    Estimated number of respondents: 87 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 3,240 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $12,200,000, includes $754,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (16) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0264; Title: NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2196.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0590; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Compression ignition internal combustion engines.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII).

    Estimated number of respondents: 260,530 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Estimated annual burden: 408,000 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $41,200,000, includes $188,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (17) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0098; Title: NESHAP for Nine Metal Fabrication and Area Finishing Source (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2298.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0622; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Area source metal fabrication and finishing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXXXXX).

    Estimated number of respondents: 5800 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 35,700 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: 3,590,000, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (18) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0526; Title: NESHAP for Aluminum, Copper, and Other Non-Ferrous Foundries (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZZ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2332.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0630; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Melting operations located at an aluminum, copper, or other non-ferrous foundry.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZZZ).

    Estimated number of respondents: 318 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 11,900 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $1,200,000, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (19) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0101; Title: NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymer Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2432.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0666; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHHH).

    Estimated number of respondents: 17 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 378,000 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $43,200,000, includes $5,150,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (20) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0102; Title: NSPS for Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2437.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0673; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Facilities involved in the extraction and production of oil and natural gas, as well as the processing, transmission, and distribution of natural gas.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO).

    Estimated number of respondents: 564 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 93,900 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $11,200,000, includes $1,750,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (21) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0103; Title: NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced after October 14, 2011 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ga) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2445.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0674; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Nitric acid plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ga).

    Estimated number of respondents: 6 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Estimated annual burden: 1,370 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $386,000, includes $248,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (22) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0104; Title: NESHAP for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2454.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0684; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Area sources polyvinyl chloride and copolymers production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDDD).

    Estimated number of respondents: 3 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Estimated annual burden: 69,200 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $7,770,000, includes $806,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (23) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2018-0250; Title: NSPS for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2442.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0693; Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Respondents: New residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ).

    Estimated number of respondents: 41 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Estimated annual burden: 2,337 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $3,380,000, includes $3,190,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected decrease in burden since the last ICR, because the rule has been effective for more than three years, and the burden for ongoing compliance is expected to be less than the burden for initial compliance with the rule.

    (24) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0533; Title: NSPS for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry (40 CFR part 60, subparts T, U, V, W, and X) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1061.14; OMB Control Number 2060-0037; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subparts T, U, V, W, and X).

    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 1,390 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $460,000, includes $320,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (25) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0528; Title: NSPS for Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHH) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1156.14; OMB Control Number 2060-0059; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Synthetic fiber production facilities with a solvent-spun, synthetic fiber process that produce more than 500 megagrams of fiber per year.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHH).

    Estimated number of respondents: 22 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 1,880 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $355,000, includes $165,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (26) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0535; Title: NSPS for Secondary Lead Smelters (40 CFR part 60, subpart L) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1128.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0080; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Secondary lead smelting facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart L).

    Estimated number of respondents: 14 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and occasionally.

    Estimated annual burden: 37 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $3,720, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (27) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0534; Title: NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1093.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0162; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Facilities that perform industrial surface coating operations on plastic parts for use in the manufacture of business machines.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT).

    Estimated number of respondents: 10 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 992 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $99,700, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (28) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0517; Title: NSPS for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or before August 30, 1999 (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1901.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0424; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: MWC units with capacities to combust greater than 35 tons per day and less than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB).

    Estimated number of respondents: 23 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 102,000 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $11,200,000, includes $1,040,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (29) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0518; Title: NESHAP for Metal Furniture Surface Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1952.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0518; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Metal furniture surface coating facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR).

    Estimated number of respondents: 583 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 190,000 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $19,800,000, includes $700,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (30) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0228; Title: NSPS for Petroleum Refineries for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced after May 14, 2007 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2263.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0602; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Petroleum refineries.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja).

    Estimated number of respondents: 150 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 64,300 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $22,100,000, includes $15,700,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (31) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0525; Title: NESHAP for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2323.07; OMB Control Number 2060-0621; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Agricultural chemicals and pesticides manufacturing, cyclic crude and intermediate production, industrial inorganic chemical manufacturing, industrial organic chemical manufacturing, inorganic pigments manufacturing, miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing, plastic materials and resins manufacturing, pharmaceutical production, and synthetic rubber manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV).

    Estimated number of respondents: 489 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 9,590 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $2,220,000, includes $1,250,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a projected increase in burden due to an increase in the number of sources subject to the regulation.

    (32) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0208; Title: NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart S) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 2452.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0681; Expiration Date: April 30, 2019.

    Respondents: Pulp and paper production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart S).

    Estimated number of respondents: 114 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 52,304 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $5,780,000, includes $841,000 annualized capital or operation & maintenance (O&M) costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (33) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0497; Title: NSPS for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units (40 CR part 63, subpart D) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1052.12; OMB Control Number 2060-0026; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Fossil fuel fired steam generating unit with heat input rate of 73 megawatts (MW) or more.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CR part 63, subpart D).

    Estimated number of respondents: 660 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 71,500 hours.

    Estimated annual cost: $17,100,000, includes $9,900,000 annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in burden from the previous ICR.

    (34) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0655; Title: NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP) (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1066.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0032; Expiration Date: May 31, 2019.

    Respondents: Ammonium sulfate dryers located at ammonium sulfate manufacturing plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP).

    Estimated number of respondents: 2 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Estimated annual burden: 286