Federal Register Vol. 83, No.105,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 105 (May 31, 2018)

Page Range24905-25325
FR Document

83_FR_105
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 25102 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of DirectorsPDF
83 FR 24979 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 25030 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 24992 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request on Two Proposed Information Collection RequestsPDF
83 FR 24960 - Approval of TN Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration UnitsPDF
83 FR 25000 - Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the Commonwealth of KentuckyPDF
83 FR 24952 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Rescission of Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan for the Reid Gardner Generating StationPDF
83 FR 24988 - Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis DeclarationsPDF
83 FR 24942 - Defensin Proteins Derived From Spinach in Citrus Plants; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
83 FR 24948 - Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically)PDF
83 FR 24940 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste CombustorsPDF
83 FR 25020 - Solicitation of Written Comments on the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Implementation Work Group Draft Report and Draft Recommendations for Consideration by the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25101 - Delegation of Authorities in Section 101(A)(27)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act To Approve Recommendations That Special Immigrant Status Be Granted to Aliens in Exceptional Circumstances and To Find That Granting Such Status Is in the U.S. National InterestPDF
83 FR 25030 - Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force MeetingPDF
83 FR 24981 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best PracticesPDF
83 FR 24905 - Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker ProgramPDF
83 FR 24995 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate UsesPDF
83 FR 25086 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940PDF
83 FR 25062 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to District Committee Structure and GovernancePDF
83 FR 25061 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 25023 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 25021 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 25002 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
83 FR 25024 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 25002 - Meeting of the Consumer Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25000 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 25060 - New Postal ProductPDF
83 FR 25055 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, Cascades Job Corps College and Career Academy Pilot Evaluation, New CollectionPDF
83 FR 25004 - Notice of Public Meeting Concerning Procurement Through Commercial e-Commerce PortalsPDF
83 FR 24982 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup ProjectPDF
83 FR 24973 - Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
83 FR 24982 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PaducahPDF
83 FR 25003 - Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Notification of Upcoming Conference CallsPDF
83 FR 25026 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility GroundsPDF
83 FR 25028 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Alien Change of Address CardPDF
83 FR 25025 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood ArrivalsPDF
83 FR 25027 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Medical Certification for Disability ExceptionPDF
83 FR 24940 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation PlansPDF
83 FR 24983 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
83 FR 25042 - Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission Notice of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25102 - Drone Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25102 - NextGen Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25043 - Notice of the June 18, 2018, Meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory CommissionPDF
83 FR 24966 - Information Collection Request; Direct Loan Servicing-Special ProgramsPDF
83 FR 25112 - 30-Day Notice of Application for New Information Collection RequestPDF
83 FR 25056 - Community Development Revolving Loan FundPDF
83 FR 24986 - New England Power Generators Association v. ISO New England Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
83 FR 24988 - GlidePath Power Solutions LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
83 FR 24986 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 24987 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
83 FR 24986 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 25109 - Centers of Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and EducationPDF
83 FR 24937 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neponset River, Boston, MAPDF
83 FR 25034 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 38 Species in the Southwest Region (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)PDF
83 FR 25032 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 25101 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
83 FR 24962 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Plain Language and Small Business Impacts of Motor Vehicle SafetyPDF
83 FR 25112 - Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 24936 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WAPDF
83 FR 25100 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
83 FR 25100 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the Commonwealth of KentuckyPDF
83 FR 25100 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of MississippiPDF
83 FR 24944 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Yellowtail SnapperPDF
83 FR 25044 - Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation; Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337PDF
83 FR 25043 - Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Notice of Request for Submissions on the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 25046 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 24938 - Safety Zone; US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge, Cumberland River, Canton, KYPDF
83 FR 24977 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Casitas Pier Fender Pile ReplacementPDF
83 FR 24919 - Class Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer RulePDF
83 FR 25005 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25113 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
83 FR 24974 - Taking and Importing of Marine MammalsPDF
83 FR 24976 - Taking and Importing of Marine MammalsPDF
83 FR 24920 - National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ProgramPDF
83 FR 24975 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer QuestionnairePDF
83 FR 24978 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25007 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 25015 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring CommitteesPDF
83 FR 24950 - Safety Zone; Appomattox River, Hopewell, VAPDF
83 FR 24937 - Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VAPDF
83 FR 25013 - Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 25018 - Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; International Council for Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 24978 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21856PDF
83 FR 24920 - Withdrawal of PleadingsPDF
83 FR 24983 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 24985 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 24984 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gateway Expansion Project; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C.PDF
83 FR 24971 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
83 FR 24968 - Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants ProgramPDF
83 FR 25049 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
83 FR 25047 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
83 FR 25038 - Agency Information Collection Activities; National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research ActivityPDF
83 FR 25268 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Northwest Atlantic OceanPDF
83 FR 25009 - Proposed Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Success Rates Reporting and Data Validation ProceduresPDF
83 FR 25001 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next MeetingPDF
83 FR 24977 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 24970 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 24969 - Notice of Public Meeting of the West Virginia Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 24970 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25041 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys (Formerly American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys)PDF
83 FR 24971 - Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 25040 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Government Customer Satisfaction SurveysPDF
83 FR 25023 - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 24979 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-Test Assessment Questions; Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25081 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Margin MethodologyPDF
83 FR 25076 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-E To Exclude Certain Categories of Issuers From the Exchange's Annual Meeting RequirementPDF
83 FR 25068 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Memorialize Its Order and Execution Information Into ISE Rule 718, Entitled “Data Feeds”PDF
83 FR 25095 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Risk ProtectionsPDF
83 FR 25087 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Trade Acceptance and Novation RulesPDF
83 FR 25093 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Peritus High Yield ETFPDF
83 FR 25097 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change, As Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Continue Listing and Trading Shares of the PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-EPDF
83 FR 25079 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt IM-7130-1 to Rule 7130PDF
83 FR 25074 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules 7150 and 7245PDF
83 FR 24945 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2018PDF
83 FR 25103 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 25014 - Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 24980 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25029 - Announcement of Public Meeting of the North American Wetlands Conservation CouncilPDF
83 FR 25021 - Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030PDF
83 FR 24975 - Notice of Availability of a NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study Draft Report and Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 24966 - Notice of Intent To Renew a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 25066 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25071 - Pioneer ILS Interval Fund and Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 25061 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25003 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 25002 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 25101 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 24967 - Notice of Intent To Renew a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 24954 - Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress ReportPDF
83 FR 24972 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan and Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 25104 - Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and MariaPDF
83 FR 25012 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25039 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Law and Order on Indian Reservations-Marriage and Dissolution ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 24990 - Public Water System Supervision Program; Supplemental Primary Enforcement Responsibility Approval for the Navajo NationPDF
83 FR 25302 - Elimination of Trichinae Control Regulations and Consolidation of Thermally Processed, Commercially Sterile RegulationsPDF
83 FR 25102 - Renewal of Defense Trade Advisory Group CharterPDF
83 FR 25116 - Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic ProducersPDF

Issue

83 105 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25005-25007 2018-11657 Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24966-24968 2018-11582 2018-11598 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

National Agricultural Library

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25007-25009 2018-11648 Proposed Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates Reporting and Data Validation Procedures, 25009-25012 2018-11628 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25012-25013 2018-11492 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Mississippi Advisory Committee, 24970-24971 2018-11625 Virginia Advisory Committee, 24970 2018-11623 West Virginia Advisory Committee, 24969-24970 2018-11624 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA, 24936-24937 2018-11669 Neponset River, Boston, MA, 24937 2018-11681 Safety Zones: Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA, 24937 2018-11644 US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge, Cumberland River, Canton, KY, 24938-24939 2018-11661 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Appomattox River, Hopewell, VA, 24950-24952 2018-11645 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 24979 2018-11764 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application Package for Learning Management System Pre- and Post-Test Assessment Questions, 24979-24980 2018-11616 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24980-24981 2018-11602 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 24971 2018-11635 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices, 24981-24982 2018-11734 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration RULES Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program, 24905-24919 2018-11732 NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 25049-25055 2018-11633 Worker Adjustment Assistance; Investigations, 25047-25049 2018-11632 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup Project, 24982 2018-11715 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah, 24982-24983 2018-11709 Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 24983 2018-11701
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors, 24940-24941 2018-11746 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; CFR Correction, 24940 2018-11702 Tolerance Requirement Exemptions: Defensin Proteins Derived From Spinach in Citrus Plants, 24942-24944 2018-11750 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Nevada; Rescission of Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan for the Reid Gardner Generating Station, 24952-24954 2018-11752 Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report, 24954-24960 2018-11572 Tennessee Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 24960-24962 2018-11754 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24992-24995 2018-11756 Pesticide Emergency Exemptions, 24988-24990 2018-11751 Product Cancellation Orders: Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate Uses, 24995-25000 2018-11731 Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for Kentucky, 25000 2018-11753 Public Water System Supervision Program: Supplemental Primary Enforcement Responsibility Approval for the Navajo Nation, 24990-24992 2018-11320 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Direct Loan Servicing-Special Programs, 24966-24967 2018-11694 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES Charter Establishments: Drone Advisory Committee, 25102 2018-11697 NextGen Advisory Committee, 25102 2018-11696 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25000-25001 2018-11720 Meetings: Consumer Advisory Committee, 25002 2018-11721 Disability Advisory Committee, 25001-25002 2018-11627 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Withdrawal of Pleadings; Correction, 24920 2018-11639 NOTICES Applications: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 24985 2018-11637 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Northern Natural Gas Company, 24983-24984 2018-11638 Combined Filings, 24986-24988 2018-11683 2018-11684 2018-11685 Complaints: GlidePath Power Solutions LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 24988 2018-11686 New England Power Generators Association v. ISO New England Inc., 24986 2018-11687 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C., 24984-24985 2018-11636 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES National Performance Management Measures: Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 24920-24936 2018-11652 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 25002 2018-11723 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25102-25103 2018-11765 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 25003 2018-11590 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 25002-25003 2018-11589 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25103 2018-11605 Allocation of Public Transportation Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, 25104-25108 2018-11538 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications, 25032-25034 2018-11674 Endangered and Threatened Species: Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 38 Species in the Southwest Region (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas), 25034-25038 2018-11675 Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications, 25030-25032 2018-11761 Meetings: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Meeting, 25030 2018-11735 North American Wetlands Conservation Council, 25029-25030 2018-11601 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees, 25015-25018 2018-11647 Guidance: Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs, 25013-25014 2018-11642 Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; International Council for Harmonisation, 25018-25020 2018-11641 Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions, 25014-25015 2018-11603 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service RULES Elimination of Trichinae Control Regulations and Consolidation of Thermally Processed, Commercially Sterile Regulations, 25302-25325 2018-11300 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 25113-25114 2018-11656 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings Green Building Advisory Committee, 25003 2018-11707 Procurement Through Commercial e-Commerce Portals, 25004-25005 2018-11717 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach and Research Activity, 25038-25039 2018-11631 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Implementation Work Group Draft Report, 25020-25021 2018-11745 Meetings: Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, 25021 2018-11600
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

RULES Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program, 24905-24919 2018-11732
Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Law and Order on Indian Reservations—Marriage and Dissolution Applications, 25039-25040 2018-11358 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee, 24971-24972 2018-11621 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: American Customer Satisfaction Index Government Customer Satisfaction Surveys, 25040-25041 2018-11620 E-Government Website Customer Satisfaction Surveys, 25041-25042 2018-11622
Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically), 24948-24950 2018-11749 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan and Vietnam, 24972-24973 2018-11541 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea, 24973-24974 2018-11713 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Earpiece Devices and Components Thereof, 25046-25047 2018-11662 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Modular LED Display Panels and Components Thereof, 25044-25046 2018-11664 Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same, 25043-25044 2018-11663 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cascades Job Corps College and Career Academy Pilot Evaluation, 25055-25056 2018-11718
Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Comment: Centers of Excellence for Domestic Maritime Workforce Training and Education, 25109-25111 2018-11682 National Agricultural National Agricultural Library NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24967-24968 2018-11582 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Funding Availability: Community Development Revolving Loan Fund, 25056-25060 2018-11689 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Plain Language and Small Business Impacts of Motor Vehicle Safety, 24962-24965 2018-11671 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25112 2018-11670 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, 24968-24969 2018-11634 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 25021-25025 2018-11722 2018-11724 2018-11725 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 25023 2018-11619 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2018, 24945-24947 2018-11606 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic: South Atlantic Yellowtail Snapper; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 24944-24945 2018-11665 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 24977-24978 2018-11650 2018-11626 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire, 24975-24976 2018-11651 Meetings: NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study Draft Report, 24975 2018-11599 Permit Applications: Marine Mammals; File No. 21856, 24978-24979 2018-11640 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement, 24977-24978 2018-11660 Marine Geophysical Survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, 25268-25300 2018-11629 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals, 24974-24977 2018-11654 2018-11655 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission, 25043 2018-11695 Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site Advisory Commission, 25042-25043 2018-11698 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 25060-25061 2018-11719 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 25061 2018-11726 2018-11727 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25061-25062, 25066-25068 2018-11593 2018-11595 Applications for Deregistrations, 25086-25087 2018-11729 Applications: Pioneer ILS Interval Fund and Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc., 25071-25074 2018-11594 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 25074-25076, 25079-25081 2018-11607 2018-11608 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 25062-25066 2018-11728 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 25068-25071 2018-11613 Nasdaq PHLX LLC, 25095-25097 2018-11612 NYSE Arca, Inc., 25076-25079, 25093-25095, 25097-25100 2018-11609 2018-11610 2018-11614 The Options Clearing Corporation, 25081-25093 2018-11611 2018-11615 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Class Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule, 24919 2018-11658 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25101 2018-11584 Disaster Declarations: Kentucky, 25100-25101 2018-11667 Mississippi, 25100 2018-11666 Surrender of Small Business Investment Company Licenses, 25100-25101 2018-11668 2018-11672 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: Defense Trade Advisory Group, 25102 2018-11106 Delegations of Authority, 25101-25102 2018-11740 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25112-25113 2018-11691
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alien Change of Address Card, 25028-25029 2018-11705 Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds, 25026-25027 2018-11706 Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 25025-25026 2018-11704 Medical Certification for Disability Exception, 25027-25028 2018-11703 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset to Affected Domestic Producers, 25116-25266 2018-10462 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Homeland Security Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 25116-25266 2018-10462 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 25268-25300 2018-11629 Part IV Agriculture Department, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 25302-25325 2018-11300 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.

83 105 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Part 214 [CIS No. 2621-18; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2018-0004] RIN 1615-AC21 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration 20 CFR Part 655 [DOL Docket No. 2017-0003] RIN 1205-AB88 Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2018 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program AGENCY:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security and Employment and Training Administration and Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.

ACTION:

Temporary rule.

SUMMARY:

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, has decided to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas to authorize the issuance of up to an additional 15,000 through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. This increase is based on a time-limited statutory authority and does not affect the H-2B program in future fiscal years. The Departments are promulgating regulations to implement this determination.

DATES:

This final rule is effective from May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2018, except for 20 CFR 655.66, which is effective from May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding 8 CFR part 214: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20529-2120, telephone (202) 272-8377 (not a toll-free call). Regarding 20 CFR part 655: William W. Thompson, II, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, Box #12-200, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number).

Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. Legal Framework B. H-2B Numerical Limitations Under the INA C. FY 2018 Omnibus D. Joint Issuance of the Final Rule II. Discussion A. Statutory Determination B. Numerical Increase of up to 15,000 C. Business Need Standard—Irreparable Harm D. DHS Petition Procedures E. DOL Procedures III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 E. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) H. National Environmental Policy Act I. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Background A. Legal Framework

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes the H-2B nonimmigrant classification for a nonagricultural temporary worker “having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform . . . temporary [non-agricultural] service or labor if unemployed persons capable of performing such service or labor cannot be found in this country.” INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Employers must petition DHS for classification of prospective temporary workers as H-2B nonimmigrants. INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1). DHS must approve this petition before the beneficiary can be considered eligible for an H-2B visa. Finally, the INA requires that “[t]he question of importing any alien as [an H-2B] nonimmigrant . . . in any specific case or specific cases shall be determined by [DHS],1 after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government.” INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1).

1 As of March 1, 2003, in accordance with section 1517 of Title XV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act describing functions which were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland Security by the HSA “shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary” of Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 557 (2003) (codifying HSA, Title XV, § 1517); 6 U.S.C. 542 note; 8 U.S.C. 1551 note.

DHS regulations provide that an H-2B petition for temporary employment in the United States must be accompanied by an approved temporary labor certification (TLC) from the Department of Labor (DOL) issued pursuant to regulations established at 20 CFR part 655. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A), (C)-(E), (iv)(A); see also INA section 103(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(6). The TLC serves as DHS's consultation with DOL with respect to whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the petitioning H-2B employer's job opportunity and whether a foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. See INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1); 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A) and (D).

In order to determine whether to issue a labor certification, the Departments have established regulatory procedures under which DOL certifies whether a qualified U.S. worker is available to fill the job opportunity described in the employer's petition for a temporary nonagricultural worker, and whether a foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. See 20 CFR part 655, subpart A. The regulations establish the process by which employers obtain a TLC, and the rights and obligations of workers and employers.

The INA also authorizes DHS to impose appropriate remedies against an employer for a substantial failure to meet the terms and conditions of employing an H-2B nonimmigrant worker, or for a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in a petition for an H-2B nonimmigrant worker. INA section 214(c)(14)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(A). The INA expressly authorizes DHS to delegate certain enforcement authority to DOL. INA section 214(c)(14)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(B); see also INA section 103(a)(6), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(6). DHS has delegated its authority under INA section 214(c)(14)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14)(A)(i) to DOL. See DHS, Delegation of Authority to DOL under Section 214(c)(14)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Jan. 16, 2009); see also 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(ix) (stating that DOL may investigate employers to enforce compliance with the conditions of, among other things, an H-2B petition and a DOL-approved TLC). This enforcement authority has been delegated within DOL to the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), and is governed by regulations at 29 CFR part 503.

B. H-2B Numerical Limitations Under the INA

The INA sets the annual number of aliens who may be issued H-2B visas or otherwise provided H-2B nonimmigrant status to perform temporary nonagricultural work at 66,000, to be distributed semi-annually beginning in October and in April. See INA sections 214(g)(1)(B) and 214(g)(10), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B) and 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(10). Up to 33,000 aliens may be issued H-2B visas or provided H-2B nonimmigrant status in the first half of a fiscal year, and the remaining annual allocation will be available for employers seeking to hire H-2B workers during the second half of the fiscal year.2 If insufficient petitions are approved to use all H-2B numbers in a given fiscal year, the unused numbers cannot be carried over for petition approvals in the next fiscal year.

2 The Federal Government's fiscal year runs from October 1 of the budget's prior year through September 30 of the year being described. For example, fiscal year 2018 is from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018.

Because of the intense demand for H-2B visas in recent years, the semi-annual visa allocation, and the regulatory requirement that employers apply for labor certification 75 to 90 days before the start date of work,3 employers who wish to obtain visas for their workers under the semi-annual allotment must act early to receive a TLC and file a petition with USCIS. As a result, DOL typically sees a significant spike in TLC applications from employers seeking to hire H-2B temporary or seasonal workers during the United States' warm weather months. For example, in FY 2018, based on Applications for Temporary Labor Certification filed on January 1, 2018, DOL's Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) certified more than 75,500 worker positions for start dates of work on April 1, a number nearly two and one-half times greater than the entire semi-annual visa allocation. USCIS received sufficient H-2B petitions to meet the second half of the fiscal year regular cap by February 27, 2018.4 This was the earliest date that the cap was reached in a respective fiscal year since FY 2009 and reflects an ongoing trend of high H-2B program demand. This is further represented by Congress authorizing additional H-2B workers through the FY 2016 reauthorization of the returning worker cap exemption; the supplemental cap authorized by section 543 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31 (FY 2017 Omnibus); and section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141 (FY 2018 Omnibus), which is discussed below.

3 20 CFR 655.15(b).

4 On March 1, 2018, USCIS announced that it had received a sufficient number of petitions to reach the congressionally mandated H-2B cap for FY 2018. USCIS began receiving petitions for the second half of the fiscal year on February 21 and received requests for more workers than the number of H-2B visas available in the first five business days beginning on that date. As a result, USCIS, in accordance with applicable regulations, conducted a lottery on February 28 to randomly select enough petitions to meet the cap. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B).

C. FY 2018 Omnibus

On March 23, 2018, the President signed the FY 2018 Omnibus which contains a provision (section 205 of Division M, hereinafter “section 205”) permitting the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances and after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to increase the number of H-2B visas available to U.S. employers, notwithstanding the otherwise established statutory numerical limitation. Specifically, section 205 provides that “the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determination that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied in [FY] 2018 with U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor,” may increase the total number of aliens who may receive an H-2B visa in FY 2018 by not more than the highest number of H-2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H-2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from the H-2B numerical limitation.5 This rule implements the authority contained in section 205.

5 The highest number of returning workers in any such fiscal year was 64,716, which represents the number of beneficiaries covered by H-2B returning worker petitions that were approved for FY 2007. DHS also considered using an alternative approach, under which DHS measured the number of H-2B returning workers admitted at the ports of entry (66,792 for FY 2007).

In FY 2017, Congress enacted section 543 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31, which was a statutory provision materially identical to section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus pertaining to the FY 2017 H-2B visa allocation. Following consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security determined that the needs of some American businesses could not be satisfied in FY 2017 with U.S. workers who were willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor. Based on this determination, on July 19, 2017, DHS and DOL jointly published a temporary final rule allowing an increase of up to 15,000 additional H-2B visas for those businesses that attested to a level of need such that, if they did not receive all of the workers requested on the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129), they were likely to suffer irreparable harm, i.e., suffer a permanent and severe financial loss.6 A total of 12,294 H-2B workers were approved for H-2B classification under petitions filed pursuant to the FY 2017 supplemental cap increase. The vast majority of the H-2B petitions received under the FY 2017 supplemental cap increase requested premium processing and were adjudicated within 15 calendar days.

6 Temporary Rule, Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Fiscal Year 2017 Numerical Limitation for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program, 82 FR 32987, 32998 (Jul. 19, 2017).

D. Joint Issuance of This Final Rule

As they did in implementing the FY 2017 Omnibus H-2B supplemental cap 7 , the Departments have determined that it is appropriate to issue this final temporary rule jointly. This determination is related to ongoing litigation following conflicting court decisions concerning DOL's authority to independently issue legislative rules to carry out its consultative and delegated functions pertaining to the H-2B program under the INA.8 Although DHS and DOL each have authority to independently issue rules implementing their respective duties under the H-2B program, the Departments are implementing section 205 in this manner to ensure there can be no question about the authority underlying the administration and enforcement of the temporary cap increase. This approach is consistent with rules implementing DOL's general consultative role under section 214(c)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1), and delegated functions under sections 103(a)(6) and 214(c)(14)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(6), 1184(c)(14)(B).9 See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A) & (C), (iv)(A).

II. Discussion A. Statutory Determination

7 82 FR 32987 (Jul. 19, 2017).

8See Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment of H-2B Aliens in the United States, 80 FR 24042 (Apr. 29, 2015) (codified at 8 CFR part 214, 20 CFR part 655, and 29 CFR part 503).

9See, e.g., id.

Following consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the needs of some American businesses cannot be satisfied in FY 2018 with U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor. In accordance with section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that it is appropriate, for the reasons stated below, to raise the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas by up to an additional 15,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Consistent with such authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security has decided to increase the H-2B cap for FY 2018 by up to 15,000 additional visas for those American businesses that attest to a level of need such that, if they do not receive all of the workers under the cap increase, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm, i.e., suffer a permanent and severe financial loss. These businesses must attest that they will likely suffer irreparable harm and must retain documentation, as described below, supporting this attestation.

The Secretary of Homeland Security's determination to increase the numerical limitation is based on the conclusion that some businesses risk closing their doors in the absence of a cap increase. Some stakeholders have reported that access to additional H-2B visas is essential to the continued viability of some small businesses that play an important role in sustaining the economy in their states, while others have stated that an increase is unnecessary and raises the possibility of abuse, by, among other things, creating an incentive for employers who, unable to hire workers under the normal 66,000 annual cap, would misrepresent their actual need in order to hire H-2B workers from amongst the limited number of newly available visa numbers under the Omnibus.10 The Secretary of Homeland Security has deemed it appropriate, notwithstanding such risk of abuse, to take immediate action to avoid irreparable harm to businesses; such harm would in turn result in wage and job losses by their U.S. workers, and other adverse downstream economic effects.11

10 Other stakeholders have reported abuses of the H-2B program. For example, the Government Accountability Office, has recommended increased worker protections in the H-2B program based on certain abuses of the program by unscrupulous employers and recruiters. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs: Increased Protections Needed for Foreign Workers, GAO-15-154 (Washington, DC, revised 2017), http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684985.pdf; U.S. Government Accountability Office, H-2B Visa Program: Closed Civil Criminal Cases Illustrate Instances of H-2B Workers Being Targets of Fraud and Abuse, GAO-10-1053 (Washington, DC, 2010), http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/310640.pdf; see also Testimony of Stephen G. Bronars, The Impact of the H-2B Program on the U.S. Labor Market, before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest (June 8, 2016), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06-08-16B_BronarsTestimony.pdf. Preliminary Analysis of the Economic Impact of the H-2B Worker Program on Virginia's Economy, Thomas J. Murray (Sep. 2011), http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/mrr11-12.pdf.

11See Randel K. Johnson & Tamar Jacoby, U.S. Chamber of Commerce & ImmigrationWorks USA, The Economic Impact of H-2B Workers (Oct. 28, 2010), available at https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/16102_LABR%2520H2BReport_LR.pdf. (last visited Apr. 27, 2018).

The decision to direct the benefits of this cap increase to businesses that need workers to avoid irreparable harm, rather than directing the cap increase to any and all businesses seeking temporary workers, is consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Security's broad discretion under section 205. Section 205 provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security, upon satisfaction of the statutory business need standard, may increase the numerical limitation to meet such need.12 The scope of the assessment called for by the statute is quite broad, and accordingly delegates the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to identify the business needs she finds most relevant. Within that context, DHS has determined to focus on the businesses with the most permanent, severe potential losses, for the below reasons.

12 DHS believes it is reasonable to infer that Congress intended, in enacting the FY 2018 Omnibus, to authorize the Secretary to allocate any new H-2B visas authorized under section 205 to the entities with the “business need” that serves as the basis for the increase.

First, DHS interprets section 205's reference to “the needs of American businesses” as describing a need different than the need required of employers in petitioning for an H-2B worker.13 If the term “needs” in section 205 referred to the same business need under the existing H-2B program, it would not have been necessary for Congress to reference such need, because Congress could have relied on existing statute and regulations. Alternatively, Congress could have made explicit reference to such statute and regulations. In addition, Congress authorized the 205 provision with materially identical language to that enacted in the FY 2017 Omnibus, which suggests that Congress does not object to the FY 2017 joint temporary rule's approach to implementing “need.” See, e.g., Public Citizen v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, DHS interprets this authority as authorizing DHS to address a heightened business need, beyond the existing requirements of the H-2B program. DOL concurs with this interpretation.

13 A petitioning employer must demonstrate that it has a temporary need for the services or labor for which it seeks to hire H-2B workers. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(ii); 20 CFR 655.6.

Second, this approach limits the increase in a way that is consistent with the implementation of the FY 2017 supplemental cap, and provides protections against adverse effects on U.S. workers that may result from a broader cap increase. Although there is not enough time remaining in FY 2018 to conduct more formal analysis of such effects and the calendar does not lend itself to such additional efforts, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that in the particular circumstances presented here, it is appropriate to tailor the availability of this temporary cap increase to those businesses likely to suffer irreparable harm, i.e., those facing permanent and severe financial loss.

Under this rule, employers must also meet, among other requirements, the generally applicable requirements that insufficient qualified U.S. workers are available to fill the petitioning H-2B employer's job opportunity and that the foreign worker's employment in the job opportunity will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. INA section 214(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1); 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii)(A) and (D); 20 CFR 655.1. To meet this standard, in order to be eligible for additional visas under this rule, employers must have a valid TLC in accordance with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) and (D), and 20 CFR 655 subpart A. Under DOL's H-2B regulations, TLCs expire on the last day of authorized employment. 20 CFR 655.55(a). Therefore, in order to have an unexpired TLC, the date on the employer's visa petition must not be later than the last day of authorized employment on the TLC. This rule also requires an additional recruitment for certain petitioners, as discussed below.

Accordingly, this rule increases the FY 2018 numerical limitation by up to 15,000 to ensure a sufficient number of visas to meet the level of demand in past years, but also restricts the availability of such visas by prioritizing only the most significant business needs. These provisions are each described in turn below.

B. Numerical Increase of up to 15,000

DHS expects the increase of up to 15,000 visas 14 to be sufficient to meet at least the same amount of need as the H-2B returning worker provision met in FY 2016 and the supplemental cap met in FY 2017. Section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus sets as the maximum limit for any increase in the H-2B numerical limitation for FY 2018, the highest number of H-2B returning workers 15 who were exempt from the cap in previous years. Consistent with the statute's reference to H-2B returning workers, in determining the appropriate number by which to increase the H-2B numerical limitation, the Secretary of Homeland Security focused on the number of visas allocated to returning workers in years in which Congress enacted “returning worker” exemptions from the H-2B numerical limitation. During each of the years the returning worker provision was in force, U.S. employers' standard business needs for H-2B workers exceeded the normal 66,000 cap.

14 In contrast with section 214(g)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1), which establishes a cap on the number of individuals who may be issued visas or otherwise provided H-2B status, and section 214(g)(10) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(10), which imposes a first half of the fiscal year cap on H-2B issuance with respect to the number of individuals who may be issued visas or are accorded [H-2B] status” (emphasis added), section 205 only authorizes DHS to increase the number of available H-2B visas. Accordingly, DHS will not permit individuals authorized for H-2B status pursuant to an H-2B petition approved under section 205 to change to H-2B status from another nonimmigrant status. See INA section 248, 8 U.S.C. 1258; see also 8 CFR pt. 248. If a petitioner files a petition seeking H-2B workers in accordance with this rule and requests a change of status on behalf of someone in the United States, the change of status request will be denied, but the petition will be adjudicated in accordance with applicable DHS regulations. Any alien authorized for H-2B status under the approved petition would need to obtain the necessary H-2B visa at a consular post abroad and then seek admission to the United States in H-2B status at a port of entry.

15 During fiscal years 2005 to 2007, and 2016, Congress enacted “returning worker” exemptions to the H-2B visa cap, allowing workers who were counted against the H-2B cap in one of the three preceding fiscal years not to be counted against the upcoming fiscal year cap. Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Sec. 402 (May 11, 2005); John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 109-364, Sec. 1074, (Oct. 17, 2006); Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Public Law 114-113, Sec. 565 (Dec. 18, 2015).

Under the most recent returning worker statute in FY 2016, 18,090 returning workers were approved for H-2B petitions, despite Congress having reauthorized the returning worker program with more than three-quarters of the fiscal year remaining. Of those 18,090 workers authorized for admission, 13,382 were admitted into the United States or otherwise acquired H-2B status. While section 205 does not limit the issuance of additional H-2B visas to returning workers, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consideration of the statute's reference to returning workers, determined that it would be appropriate to use these recent figures as a basis for the maximum numerical limitation under section 205.

The Secretary of Homeland Security also considered the number of H-2B workers who were approved under the FY 2017 supplemental H-2B cap.16 Out of a maximum of 15,000 supplemental H-2B visas for FY 2017, a total of 12,294 beneficiaries were approved for H-2B classification. Although fewer beneficiaries were approved for H-2B classification than the available number of visas in FY 2017, the Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to authorize 15,000 additional visas again, as employers will have a longer period in which to submit their petitions due to the earlier publication date of this rule, thereby allowing for the possibility of more petitions being filed this fiscal year than in FY 2017.

16See section 543 of Div. F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31.

C. Business Need Standard—Irreparable Harm

To file an H-2B petition during the remainder of FY 2018, petitioners must meet all existing H-2B eligibility requirements, including having an approved, valid and unexpired TLC per 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6) and 20 CFR part 655 subpart A. In addition, the petitioner must submit an attestation in which the petitioner affirms, under penalty of perjury, that it meets the business need standard set forth above. Under that standard, the petitioner must be able to establish that if it does not receive all of the workers under the cap increase, it is likely to suffer irreparable harm, that is, permanent and severe financial loss. Although the TLC process focuses on establishing whether a petitioner has a need for workers, the TLC does not directly address the harm a petitioner may face in the absence of such workers; the attestation addresses this question. The attestation must be submitted directly to USCIS, together with Form I-129, the valid TLC, and any other necessary documentation. As in the rule implementing the FY 2017 temporary cap increase, the new attestation form is included in this rulemaking as Appendix A.

The attestation serves as prima facie initial evidence to DHS that the petitioner's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm.17 Any petition received lacking the requisite attestation may be denied in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii). Although this regulation does not require submission of evidence at the time of filing of the petition, other than an attestation, the employer must have such evidence on hand and ready to present to DHS or DOL at any time starting with the date of filing, through the prescribed document retention period discussed below.

17 An employer may request fewer workers on the H-2B petition than the number of workers listed on the TLC.

In addition to the statement regarding the irreparable harm standard, the attestation will also state that the employer: Meets all other eligibility criteria for the available visas; will comply with all assurances, obligations, and conditions of employment set forth in the Application for Temporary Employment Certification (Form ETA 9142B and Appendix B) certified by the DOL for the job opportunity (which serves as the TLC); will conduct additional recruitment of U.S. workers, in accordance with this rulemaking; and will document and retain evidence of such compliance. The process under this regulation is similar to the process the Departments have employed with respect to the statutory provisions authorizing seafood employers to stagger the border crossings of H-2B workers. For seafood employers, a similar attestation, which provides that the employer has conducted additional recruitment, is provided to the consular officer at the time the H-2B worker applies for a visa and/or to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer at the time the worker seeks admission at a port of entry. See 20 CFR 655.15(f). Because the attestation will be submitted to USCIS as initial evidence with Form I-129, a denial of the petition based on or related to statements made in the attestation is appealable under existing USCIS procedures. Specifically, DHS considers the attestation to be evidence that is incorporated into and a part of the petition consistent with 8 CFR 103.2(b).

The requirement to provide a post-TLC attestation to USCIS is sufficiently protective of U.S. workers given that the employer, in completing the TLC process, has already made one unsuccessful attempt to recruit U.S. workers. In addition, the employer is required to retain documentation, which must be provided upon request, supporting the new attestations, including a recruitment report for any additional recruitment required under this rule. Accordingly, USCIS may issue a denial or a request for additional evidence in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b) or 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11) based on such documentation, and DOL's OFLC and WHD will be able to review this documentation and enforce the attestations during the course of an audit examination or investigation. Although the employer must have such documentation on hand at the time it files the petition, the Departments have determined that if employers were required to submit the attestations to DOL before seeking a petition from DHS or to complete all recruitment before submitting a petition, the attendant delays would render any visas unlikely to satisfy the needs of American businesses given processing timeframes and that there are only a few months remaining in this fiscal year.

In accordance with the attestation requirement, under which petitioners attest that they meet the irreparable harm standard, and the documentation retention requirements at 20 CFR 655.66, the petitioner must retain documents and records meeting their burden to demonstrate compliance with this rule, and must provide the documents and records upon the request of DHS or DOL, such as in the event of an audit or investigation. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following types of documentation:

(1) Evidence that the business is or would be unable to meet financial or contractual obligations without H-2B workers, including evidence of contracts, reservations, orders, or other business arrangements that have been or would be cancelled absent the requested H-2B workers, and evidence demonstrating an inability to pay debts/bills;

(2) Evidence that the business has suffered or will suffer permanent and severe financial loss during the period of need, as compared to the period of need in prior years, such as: Financial statements (including profit/loss statements) comparing present period of need as compared to prior years; bank statements, tax returns or other documents showing evidence of current and past financial condition; and relevant tax records, employment records, or other similar documents showing hours worked and payroll comparisons from prior years to current year;

(3) Evidence showing the number of workers needed in previous seasons to meet the employer's temporary need as compared to those currently employed, including the number of H-2B workers requested, the number of H-2B workers actually employed, the dates of their employment, and their hours worked (for example, payroll records), particularly in comparison to the weekly hours stated on the TLC. In addition, for employers that obtain authorization to employ H-2B workers under this rule, evidence showing the number of H-2B workers requested under this rule, the number of workers actually employed, including H-2B workers, the dates of their employment, and their hours worked (for example, payroll records), particularly in comparison to the weekly hours stated on the TLC; and/or

(4) Evidence that the business is dependent on H-2B workers, such as: number of H-2B workers compared to U.S. workers needed prospectively or in the past; business plan or reliable forecast showing that, due to the nature and size of the business, there is a need for a specific number of H-2B workers.

These examples of potential evidence, however, will not exclusively or necessarily establish that the business meets the irreparable harm standard, and petitioners may retain other types of evidence they believe will satisfy this standard. If an audit or investigation occurs, DHS or DOL will review all evidence available to it to confirm that the petitioner properly attested to DHS that their business would likely suffer irreparable harm. If DHS subsequently finds that the evidence does not support the employer's attestation, DHS may deny or revoke the petition consistent with existing regulatory authorities and/or notify DOL. In addition, DOL may independently take enforcement action, including, among other things, to debar the petitioner from using the H-2B program generally for not less than one year or more than 5 years from the date of the final agency decision and may disqualify the debarred party from filing any labor certification applications or labor condition applications with DOL for the same period set forth in the final debarment decision. See, e.g., 20 CFR 655.73; 29 CFR 503.20, 503.24.18

18 Pursuant to the statutory provisions governing enforcement of the H-2B program, INA section 214(c)(14), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14), a violation exists under the H-2B program where there has been a willful misrepresentation of a material fact in the petition or a substantial failure to meet any of the terms and conditions of the petition. A substantial failure is a willful failure to comply that constitutes a significant deviation from the terms and conditions. See, e.g. , 29 CFR 503.19.

To the extent that evidence reflects a preference for hiring H-2B workers over U.S. workers, an investigation by other agencies enforcing employment and labor laws, such as the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, may be warranted. See INA section 274B, 8 U.S.C. 1324b (prohibiting certain types of employment discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin). Moreover, DHS and WHD may refer potential discrimination to IER under the Memorandum of Understanding between IER and DHS. https://www.justice.gov/crt/partnerships. In addition, if members of the public have information that a participating employer may be abusing this program, DHS invites them to notify USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate by contacting the general H-2B complaint address at [email protected] 19

19 DHS may publicly disclose information regarding the H-2B program consistent with applicable law and regulations.

DHS, in exercising its statutory authority under INA section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), and section 205 of the FY 2018 Omnibus, is responsible for adjudicating eligibility for H-2B classification. As in all cases, the burden rests with the petitioner to establish eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. INA section 291, 8 U.S.C. 1361. Accordingly, as noted above, where the petition lacks initial evidence, such as a properly completed attestation, DHS may deny the petition in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii). Further, where the initial evidence submitted with the petition contains inconsistencies or is inconsistent with other evidence in the petition and underlying TLC, DHS may issue a Request for Evidence, Notice of Intent to Deny, or Denial in accordance with 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8). In addition, where it is determined that an H-2B petition filed pursuant to the FY 2018 Omnibus was granted erroneously, the H-2B petition approval may be revoked, see 8 CFR 214.2(h)(11).

Because of the particular circumstances of this regulation, and because the attestation plays a vital role in achieving the purposes of this regulation, DHS and DOL intend that the attestation requirement be non-severable from the remainder of the regulation. Thus, in the event the attestation requirement is enjoined or held invalid, the remainder of the regulation, with the exception of the retention requirements, is also intended to cease operation in the relevant jurisdiction, without prejudice to workers already present in the United States under this regulation, as consistent with law.

D. DHS Petition Procedures

To petition for H-2B workers under this rule, the petitioner must file a Form-129 in accordance with applicable regulations and form instructions, an unexpired TLC, and the attestation described above. See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x). The attestation must be filed on Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2, Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrants Workers Under Section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which is attached to this rulemaking as Appendix A. See 20 CFR 655.64. A petitioner is required to retain a copy of such attestation and all supporting evidence for 3 years from the date the associated TLC was approved, consistent with 20 CFR 655.56 and 29 CFR 503.17. See new 20 CFR 655.66. Petitions submitted pursuant to the FY 2018 Omnibus will be processed in the order in which they were received. Petitioners may also choose to request premium processing of their petition under 8 CFR 103.7 (e), which allows for expedited processing for an additional fee.

To encourage timely filing of any petition seeking a visa under the FY 2018 Omnibus, DHS is notifying the public that the petition may not be approved by USCIS on or after October 1, 2018. See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x). Petitions pending with USCIS that are not approved before October 1, 2018 will be denied and any fees will not be refunded. See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x).

USCIS's current processing goals for H-2B petitions that can be adjudicated without the need for further evidence (i.e., without a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny) are 15 days for petitions requesting premium processing and 30 days for standard processing.20 Given USCIS's processing goals for premium processing, DHS believes that 15 days from the end of the fiscal year is the minimum time needed for petitions to be adjudicated, although USCIS cannot guarantee the time period will be sufficient in all cases. Therefore, if the increase in the H-2B numerical limitation to 15,000 visas has not yet been reached, USCIS will stop accepting petitions received after September 14, 2018.21 See new 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x)(C). Such petitions will be rejected and the filing fees will be returned.

20 These processing goals are not binding on USCIS; depending on the evidence presented, actual processing times may vary from these 15- and 30-day periods.

21 In FY 2017, USCIS used September 15th as the cutoff date for accepting petitions filed under the supplemental cap. The 15 days for processing was tied to the Premium Processing clock. However, in FY 2018, September 15, 2018 is a Saturday, when USCIS does not accept petitions. USCIS therefore revised the date to September 14th, 2018 to remain consistent with the expectation of adjudication within the premium processing clock and to avoid potential confusion and frustration from petitioners who might have otherwise expected their petitions to be received on the 15th but would instead face rejection.

As with other Form I-129 filings, DHS encourages petitioners to provide a duplicate copy of Form I-129 and all supporting documentation at the time of filing if the beneficiary is seeking a nonimmigrant visa abroad. Failure to submit duplicate copies may cause a delay in the issuance of a visa to otherwise eligible applicants.22

E. DOL Procedures

All employers are required to have an approved and valid TLC from DOL in order to file a Form I-129 petition with DHS, in accordance with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) and (D). Employers with an approved TLC will have already conducted recruitment, as set forth in 20 CFR 655.40-48, to determine whether U.S. workers are qualified and available to perform the work for which H-2B workers are sought. In addition to the recruitment already conducted, employers with current labor certifications containing a start date of work before April 15, 2018, must conduct a fresh round of recruitment for U.S. workers. As noted in the 2015 H-2B comprehensive rule, U.S. workers seeking employment in these jobs typically do not search for work months in advance, and cannot make commitments about their availability for employment far in advance of the work. See 80 FR 24041, 24061, 24071. Given the 75-90 day labor certification process applicable in the H-2B program generally, employer recruitment typically occurs between 40 and 60 days before the start date of employment. Therefore, employers with TLCs containing a start date of work before April 15, 2018, likely began their recruitment around February 15, 2018, and likely ended it about March 5, 2018, more than two and one half months ago. In order to provide U.S. workers a realistic opportunity to pursue jobs for which employers will be seeking foreign workers under this rule, the Departments have determined that employers with start dates of work before April 15, 2018 have not conducted recent recruitment so that the Departments can reasonably conclude that there are currently an insufficient number of U.S. workers qualified and available to perform the work absent an additional, though abbreviated, recruitment attempt. Although the April 15 threshold for additional recruitment identified in this rule is earlier than the June 1 date for which additional recruitment was required in the FY 2017 rule, the April 15 threshold reflects a similar timeframe between the end of the employer's recruitment and publication of the regulation as that provided under the FY 2017 rule. In the FY 2017 rule, the Departments determined that an employer's initial recruitment efforts, which occurred approximately three months before publication, could no longer be considered current without a more recent recruitment attempt. This same analysis applies to this FY 2018 rule.

22 Petitioners should note that under section 205, the H-2B numerical increase relates to the total number of aliens who may receive a visa under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the INA in this fiscal year.

Therefore, employers with still valid TLCs with a start date of work before April 15, 2018, will be required to conduct additional recruitment, and attest that the recruitment will be conducted, as follows. The employer must place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency (SWA), serving the area of intended employment. The job order must contain the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment, and remain posted for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for H-2B workers to USCIS. The employer must also follow all applicable SWA instructions for posting job orders and receive applications in all forms allowed by the SWA, including online applications. In addition, eligible employers will also be required to place one newspaper advertisement, which may be published online or in print on any day of the week, meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance. Employers must retain the additional recruitment documentation, including a recruitment report that meets the requirements for recruitment reports set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1)(2) & (7), together with a copy of the attestation and supporting documentation, as described above, for a period of 3 years from the date that the TLC was approved, consistent with the document retention requirements under 20 CFR 655.56. These requirements are similar to those that apply to certain seafood employers who stagger the entry of H-2B workers under 20 CFR 655.15(f).

The employer must hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted. The 2 business day requirement permits a brief additional period of time to enable U.S. workers to contact the employer following the job order or newspaper advertisement. Consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.

DOL's WHD has the authority to investigate the employer's attestations, as the attestations are a required part of the H-2B petition process under this rule and the attestations rely on the employer's existing, approved TLC. Where a WHD investigation determines that there has been a willful misrepresentation of a material fact or a substantial failure to meet the required terms and conditions of the attestations, WHD may institute administrative proceedings to impose sanctions and remedies, including (but not limited to) assessment of civil money penalties, recovery of wages due, make whole relief for any U.S. worker who has been improperly rejected for employment, laid off or displaced, and/or debarment for 1 to 5 years. See 29 CFR 503.19, 503.20. This regulatory authority is consistent with WHD's existing enforcement authority and is not limited by the expiration date of this rule. Therefore, in accordance with the documentation retention requirements at new 20 CFR 655.66, the petitioner must retain documents and records evidencing compliance with this rule, and must provide the documents and records upon request by DHS or DOL.

DHS has the authority to verify any information submitted to establish H-2B eligibility before or after the petition has been adjudicated by USCIS. See, e.g., INA section 103 204, and 214 (8 U.S.C. 1103, 1154, 1184) and 8 CFR part 103 and 214.2(h). DHS's verification methods may include, but are not limited to: Review of public records and information; contact via written correspondence or telephone; unannounced physical site inspections; and interviews. USCIS will use information obtained through verification to determine H-2B eligibility and assess compliance with the requirements of the H-2B program. Subject to the exceptions described in 8 CFR 103.2(b)(16), USCIS will provide petitioners with an opportunity to address any adverse or derogatory information that may result from a USCIS compliance review, verification, or site visit after a formal decision is made on a petition or after the agency has initiated an adverse action that may result in revocation or termination of an approval.

DOL's OFLC has the existing authority to conduct audit examinations on adjudicated Applications for Temporary Employment Certification, and verify any information supporting the employer's attestations under 20 CFR 655.70. Where an audit examination determines that there has been fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact or a substantial failure to meet the required terms and conditions of the attestations or failure to comply with the audit examination process, OFLC may institute appropriate administrative proceedings to impose sanctions on the employer. These sanctions may result in revocation of an approved TLC, the requirement that the employer undergo assisted recruitment in future filings of an Application for Temporary Employment Certification for a period of up to 2 years, and/or debarment from the H-2B program and any other foreign labor certification program administered by the DOL for 1 to 5 years. See 29 CFR 655.71, 655.72, 655.73. Additionally, OFLC has the authority to provide any finding made or documents received during the course of conducting an audit examination to the DHS, WHD, IER, or other enforcement agencies. OFLC's existing audit authority is independently authorized, and is not limited by the expiration date of this rule. Therefore, in accordance with the documentation retention requirements at new 20 CFR 655.66, the petitioner must retain documents and records proving compliance with this rule, and must provide the documents and records upon request by DHS or DOL.

Petitioners must also comply with any other applicable laws in their recruitment, such as avoiding unlawful discrimination against U.S. workers based on their citizenship status or national origin. Specifically, the failure to recruit and hire qualified and available U.S. workers on account of such individuals' national origin or citizenship status may violate INA section 274B, 8 U.S.C. 1324b.

III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity to comment and with an immediate effective date pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d).

1. Good Cause To Forgo Notice and Comment Rulemaking

The APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The good cause exception for forgoing notice and comment rulemaking “excuses notice and comment in emergency situations, or where delay could result in serious harm.” Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Although the good cause exception is “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced,” Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 969 F.2d 1141, 1144 (D.C. Cir.1992) the Departments have appropriately invoked the exception in this case, for the reasons set forth below.

In this case, the Departments are bypassing advance notice and comment because of the exigency created by section 205 of Div. M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (FY 2018 Omnibus), which went into effect on March 23, 2018 and expires on September 30, 2018. USCIS received more than enough petitions to meet the H-2B visa statutory cap for the second half of the FY 2018 during the first five business days that those petitions could be filed. Therefore, USCIS conducted a lottery on February 28, 2018 to randomly select a sufficient number of petitions to meet the cap. USCIS rejected and returned the petitions and associated filing fees to petitioners that were not selected, as well as all cap-subject petitions received after February 27, 2018. Given high demand by American businesses for H-2B workers, and the short period of time remaining in the fiscal year for U.S. employers to avoid the economic harms described above, a decision to undertake notice and comment rulemaking would likely delay final action on this matter by weeks or months, and would therefore complicate and likely preclude the Departments from successfully exercising the authority in section 205.

Courts have found “good cause” under the APA when an agency is moving expeditiously to avoid significant economic harm to a program, program users, or an industry. Courts have held that an agency may use the good cause exception to address “a serious threat to the financial stability of [a government] benefit program,” Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Emps. v. Devine, 671 F.2d 607, 611 (D.C. Cir. 1982), or to avoid “economic harm and disruption” to a given industry, which would likely result in higher consumer prices, Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

Consistent with the above authorities, the Departments have bypassed notice and comment to prevent the “serious economic harm to the H-2B community,” including associated U.S. workers, that could result from ongoing uncertainty over the status of the numerical limitation, i.e., the effective termination of the program through the remainder of FY 2018. See Bayou Lawn & Landscape Servs. v. Johnson, 173 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1285 & n.12 (N.D. Fla. 2016). The Departments note that this action is temporary in nature, see id., 23 and includes appropriate conditions to ensure that it affects only those businesses most in need.

23 Because the Departments have issued this rule as a temporary final rule, this rule—with the sole exception of the document retention requirements—will be of no effect after September 30, 2018, even if Congress includes an authority similar to section 205 in a subsequent act of Congress.

2. Good Cause To Proceed With an Immediate Effective Date

The APA also authorizes agencies to make a rule effective immediately, upon a showing of good cause, instead of imposing a 30-day delay. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The good cause exception to the 30-day effective date requirement is easier to meet than the good cause exception for foregoing notice and comment rulemaking. Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 1992); Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1981); U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, 605 F.2d 283, 289-90 (7th Cir. 1979). An agency can show good cause for eliminating the 30-day delayed effective date when it demonstrates urgent conditions the rule seeks to correct or unavoidable time limitations. U.S. Steel Corp., 605 F.2d at 290; United States v. Gavrilovic, 511 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977). For the same reasons set forth above, we also conclude that the Departments have good cause to dispense with the 30-day effective date requirement given that this rule is necessary to prevent U.S. businesses from suffering irreparable harm and therefore causing significant economic disruption.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), imposes certain requirements on Federal agency rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). This final rule is exempt from notice and comment requirements for the reasons stated above. Therefore, the requirements of the RFA applicable to final rules, 5 U.S.C. 604, do not apply to this final rule. Accordingly, the Departments are not required to either certify that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to 2017 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) is $161 million.

This rule does not exceed the $100 million expenditure in any 1 year when adjusted for inflation ($161 million in 2017 dollars), and this rulemaking does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply, and the Departments have not prepared a statement under the Act.

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This temporary rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 804, 110 Stat. 847, 872 (1996), 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule has not been found to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic or export markets.

E. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” although not an economically significant regulatory action. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this regulation. OMB considers this final rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

1. Summary

With this final rule, DHS is authorizing up to an additional 15,000 visas for the remainder of FY 2018, pursuant to the FY 2018 Omnibus, to be available to certain U.S. businesses under the H-2B visa classification. By the authority given under the FY 2018 Omnibus, DHS is increasing the H-2B cap for the remainder of FY 2018 for those businesses that: (1) Show that there are an insufficient number of qualified U.S. workers to meet their needs in FY 2018; and (2) attest that their businesses are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the ability to employ the H-2B workers that are the subject of their petition. This final rule aims to help prevent such harm by allowing them to hire additional H-2B workers within FY 2018. DHS estimates that the total cost of this rule ranges from $8,027,906 (rounded) to $10,306,023 (rounded) depending on the combination of petitions filed by each type of filer.24 Table 1 (below) provides a brief summary of the provision and its impact.

24 Calculation: Petitioner costs to file (Form I-129: $2,024,162 (rounded) to $4,111,474 (rounded)) + (Form I-907 $3,839,617 to $4,030,421) + (Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2 $2,164,127) = $8,027,906 (rounded) to $10,306,022 (rounded).

Table 1—Summary of Provision and Impact Current provision Changes resulting from
  • the proposed provisions
  • Expected cost of
  • the proposed provision
  • Expected benefit of
  • the proposed provision
  • The current statutory cap limits H-2B visa allocations by 66,000 workers a year The amended provisions would allow for up to 15,000 additional H-2B visas for the remainder of the fiscal year • The total estimated cost to file Form I-129 would be $2,024,162 (rounded) if human resource specialists file, $2,989,687 (rounded) if in-house lawyers file, and $4,111,474 (rounded) if outsourced lawyers file
  • • If a Form I-907 is submitted as well, the total estimated cost to file for Form I-907 would be a maximum of $3,839,617 if human resource specialists file, $3,921,285 if in-house lawyers file, and $4,030,421 if outsourced lawyers file
  • • DHS may incur some additional adjudication costs as more applicants may file Form I-129. However, these additional costs are expected to be covered by the fees paid for filing the form
  • • Eligible petitioners would be able to hire the temporary workers needed to prevent their businesses from suffering irreparable harm.
  • • U.S. employees of these businesses would avoid harm.
  • Petitioners would also be required to fill out newly created Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2, Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrant Workers Under Section 205 of Div. M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 • The total estimated cost to petitioners to complete and file Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2 is $2,164,127 • Serves as initial evidence to DHS that the petitioner meets the irreparable harm standard. Source: USCIS and DOL analysis.
    2. Background and Purpose of the Rule

    The H-2B visa classification program was designed to serve U.S. businesses that are unable to find a sufficient number of qualified U.S. workers to perform nonagricultural work of a temporary or seasonal nature. For an H-2B nonimmigrant worker to be admitted into the United States under this visa classification, the hiring employer is required to: (1) Receive a TLC from DOL and (2) file a Form I-129 with DHS. The temporary nature of the services or labor described on the approved TLC is subject to DHS review during adjudication of Form I-129.25 Up to 33,000 aliens may be issued H-2B visas or provided H-2B nonimmigrant status in the first half of a fiscal year, and the remaining annual allocation will be available for employers seeking to hire H-2B workers during the second half of the fiscal year.26 Any unused numbers from the first half of the fiscal year will be available for employers seeking to hire H-2B workers during the second half of the fiscal year. However, any unused H-2B numbers from one fiscal year do not carry over into the next and will therefore not be made available.27

    25 Revised effective 1/18/2009; 73 FR 78104.

    26See INA section 214(g)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B), INA section 214(g)(10) and 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(10).

    27 A TLC approved by the Department of Labor must accompany an H-2B petition. The employment start date stated on the petition generally must match the start date listed on the TLC. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iv)(A) and (D).

    The H-2B cap for the second half of FY 2018 was reached on February 27, 2018. Normally, once the H-2B cap has been reached, petitioners must wait until the next half of the fiscal year, or the beginning of the next fiscal year, for additional cap-subject visas to become available. However, on March 23, 2018, the President signed the FY 2018 Omnibus that contains a provision (Sec. 205 of Div. M) authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security, under certain circumstances, to increase the number of H-2B visas available to U.S. employers, notwithstanding the established statutory numerical limitation. After consulting with the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined it is appropriate to exercise her discretion and raise the H-2B cap by up to an additional 15,000 visas for the remainder of FY 2018 for those businesses who would qualify under certain circumstances.

    3. Population

    This temporary rule would impact those employers who file Form I-129 on behalf of the nonimmigrant worker they seek to hire under the H-2B visa program. More specifically, this rule would impact those employers who could establish that their business is likely to suffer irreparable harm because they cannot employ the H-2B workers requested on their petition in this fiscal year. Due to the temporary nature of this rule and the limited time left for these additional visas to be available, DHS believes it is more reasonable to assume that eligible petitioners for these additional 15,000 visas will be those employers that have already completed the steps to receive an approved TLC prior to the issuance of this rule. 28 According to DOL OFLC's certification data for FY 2018, there were about 4,978 H-2B certifications with expected work start dates between April 1 and September 30, 2018. However, many of these certifications have already been filled under the existing cap. Of the 4,978 certifications, we estimated that 1,902 certifications would have been filled with the second semi-annual statutory cap of 33,000 visas.29 We believe that the remaining certifications of 3,076 (= 4,978−1,902) represents the pool of employers with approved certifications that may apply for additional H-2B workers under this rule, and therefore serves as a reasonable proxy for the number of petitions we may receive under this rule.

    28 Note that as in the standard H-2B visa issuance process, petitioning employers must still apply for a temporary labor certification and receive approval from DOL before submitting the Form I-129 petition with USCIS.

    29 Between October 1, 2017, and April 15, 2018, DOL approved a total of 4,978 certifications for 86,391 H-2B positions with work start date between April and September in 2018. Therefore, we estimated that the average number of H-2B positions per certification is 17.35 (=86,391/4,978) and the number of certifications that would have been filled with the second semi-annual statutory cap of 33,000 is 1,902 (=33,000/17.35).

    4. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    The costs for this form include filing costs and the opportunity costs of time to complete and file the form. The current filing fee for Form I-129 is $460 and the estimated time needed to complete and file Form I-129 for H-2B classification is 4.26 hours.30 The time burden of 4.26 hours for Form I-129 also includes the time to file and retain documents. The application must be filed by a U.S. employer, a U.S. agent, or a foreign employer filing through the U.S. agent. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2). Due to the expedited nature of this rule, DHS was unable to obtain data on the number of Form I-129 H-2B applications filed directly by a petitioner and those that are filed by a lawyer on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, DHS presents a range of estimated costs including if only human resource (HR) specialists file Form I-129 or if only lawyers file Form I-129.31 Further, DHS presents cost estimates for lawyers filing on behalf of applicants based on whether all Form I-129 applications are filed by in-house lawyers or by outsourced lawyers.32 DHS presents an estimated range of costs assuming that only HR specialists, in-house lawyers, or outsourced lawyers file these forms, though DHS recognizes that it is likely that filing will be conducted by a combination of these different types of filers.

    30 The public reporting burden for this form is 2.26 hours for Form I-129 and an additional 2 hours for H Classification Supplement. See Form I-129 instructions at https://www.uscis.gov/i-129.

    31 For the purposes of this analysis, DHS assumes a human resource specialist or some similar occupation completes and files these forms as the employer or petitioner who is requesting the H-2B worker. However, DHS understands that not all entities have human resources departments or occupations and, therefore, recognizes equivalent occupations may prepare these petitions.

    32 For the purposes of this analysis, DHS adopts the terms “in-house” and “outsourced” lawyers as they were used in the DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) analysis, “Final Small Entity Impact Analysis: Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter” at G-4 (posted Aug. 5, 2008), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ICEB-2006-0004-0922. The DHS ICE analysis highlighted the variability of attorney wages and was based on information received in public comment to that rule. We believe the distinction between the varied wages among lawyers is appropriate for our analysis.

    To estimate the total opportunity cost of time to petitioners who complete and file Form I-129, DHS uses the mean hourly wage rate of HR specialists of $31.84 as the base wage rate.33 If applicants hire an in-house or outsourced lawyer to file Form I-129 on their behalf, DHS uses the mean hourly wage rate of $68.22 as the base wage rate.34 Using the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, DHS calculated a benefits-to-wage multiplier of 1.46 to estimate the full wages to include benefits such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement.35 DHS multiplied the average hourly U.S. wage rate for HR specialists and for in-house lawyers by the benefits-to-wage multiplier of 1.46 to estimate the full cost of employee wages. The total per hour wage is $46.49 for an HR specialist and $99.60 for an in-house lawyer.36 In addition, DHS recognizes that an entity may not have in-house lawyers and therefore, seek outside counsel to complete and file Form I-129 on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, DHS presents a second wage rate for lawyers labeled as outsourced lawyers. DHS estimates the total per hour wage is $170.55 for an outsourced lawyer.3738 If a lawyer submits Form I-129 on behalf of the petitioner, Form G-28 (Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative), must accompany the Form I-129 submission.39 DHS estimates the time burden to complete and submit Form G-28 for a lawyer is 53 minutes (0.88 hour, rounded). For this analysis, DHS adds the time to complete Form G-28 to the opportunity cost of time to lawyers for filing Form I-129 on behalf of a petitioner. Therefore, the total opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist to complete and file Form I-129 is $198.05, for an in-house lawyer to complete and file is $511.94, and for an outsourced lawyer to complete and file is $876.63.40 The total cost, including filing fee and opportunity costs of time, per petitioner to file Form I-129 is $658.05 if HR specialists file, $971.94 if an in-house lawyer files, and $1,336.63 if an outsourced lawyer files the form.41

    33 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2017, Human Resources Specialist: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes131071.htm.

    34 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment Statistics May 2017, Lawyers: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes231011.htm.

    35 The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: (Total Employee Compensation per hour)/(Wages and Salaries per hour). See Economic News Release, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 1. Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group (December 2017), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03202018.pdf.

    36 Calculation for the total wage of an HR specialist: $31.84 × 1.46 = $46.49 (rounded). Calculation for the total wage of an in-house lawyer: $68.22 × 1.46 = $99.60 (rounded).

    37Calculation: Average hourly wage rate of lawyers × Benefits-to-wage multiplier for outsourced lawyer = $68.22 × 2.5 = $170.55.

    38 The DHS ICE “Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter” used a multiplier of 2.5 to convert in-house attorney wages to the cost of outsourced attorney based on information received in public comment to that rule. We believe the explanation and methodology used in the Final Small Entity Impact Analysis remains sound for using 2.5 as a multiplier for outsourced labor wages in this rule, see page G-4 [Aug. 25, 2008] [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ICEB-2006-0004-0922].

    39 USCIS, Filing Your Form G-28, https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-your-form-g-28.

    40 Calculation if an HR specialist files: $46.49 × (4.26 hours) = $198.05 (rounded);

    Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $99.60 × (4.26 hours to file Form I-129 H-2B + 0.88 hour to file Form G-28) = $511.94 (rounded);

    Calculation if an outsourced lawyer files: $170.55 × (4.26 hours to file Form I-129 H-2B + 0.88 hour to file Form G-28) = $876.63 (rounded).

    41 Calculation if an HR specialist files: $198.05 + $460 (filing fee) = $658.05;

    Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $511.94 + $460 (filing fee) = $971.94;

    Calculation if outsourced lawyer files: $876.63 + $460 (filing fee) = $1,336.63.

    (a) Cost to Petitioners

    As mentioned in Section 3, the population impacted by this rule is the 3,076 petitioners who may apply for up to 15,000 additional H-2B visas for the remainder of FY 2017. Based on the previously presented total filing costs per petitioner, DHS estimates the total cost to file Form I-129 is $2,024,162 (rounded) if HR specialists file, $2,989,687 (rounded) if in-house lawyers file, and $4,111,474 (rounded) if outsourced lawyers file.42 DHS recognizes that not all Form I-129 petitions are likely to be filed by only one type of filer and cannot predict how many petitions would be filed by each type of filer. Therefore, DHS estimates that the total cost to file Form I-129 could range from $2,024,162 (rounded) to $4,111,474 (rounded) depending on the combination of petitions filed by each type of filer.

    42 Calculation if HR specialist files: $658.05 × 3,076 (population applying for H-2B visas) = $2,024,161.80 = $2,024,162 (rounded);

    Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $971.94 × 3,076 (population applying for H-2B visas) = $2,989,687.44 = $2,989,687 (rounded);

    Calculation if an outsourced lawyer files: $1,336.63 × 3,076 (population applying for H-2B visas) = $4,111,473.88 = $4,111,474 (rounded).

    (1) Form I-907

    Employers may use Request for Premium Processing Service (Form I-907) to request faster processing of their Form I-129 petitions for H-2B visas. The filing fee for Form I-907 is $1,225 and the time burden for completing the form is 0.5 hours. Using the wage rates established previously, the opportunity cost of time is $23.25 for an HR specialist to file Form I-907, $49.80 for an in-house lawyer to file, and $85.28 for an outsourced lawyer to file.43 Therefore, the total filing cost to complete and file Form I-907 per petitioner is $1,248.25 if HR specialists file, $1,274.80 if in-house lawyers file, and $1,310.28 if outsourced lawyers file.44 Due to the expedited nature of this rule, DHS was unable to obtain data on the average percentage of Form I-907 applications that were submitted with Form I-129 H-2B petitions. Table 2 (below) shows the range of percentages of the 3,076 petitioners who may also request their Form I-129 adjudications be premium processed as well as the estimated total cost of filing Form I-907. DHS anticipates that most, if not all, of the additional 3,076 Form I-129 petitions will be requesting premium processing due to the limited time between the publication of this rule and the end of the fiscal year. Further, as shown in table 2, the total estimated cost to complete and file a Form I-907 when submitted with Form I-129 on behalf of an H-2B worker is a maximum of $3,839,617 if human resources specialists file, $3,921,285 if in-house lawyers file, and $4,030,421 if outsourced lawyers file.

    43 Calculation if an HR specialist files: $46.49 × (0.5 hours) = $23.25 (rounded);

    Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $99.60 × (0.5 hours) = $49.80 (rounded);

    Calculation if an outsourced lawyer files: $170.55 × (0.5 hours) = $85.28 (rounded).

    44 Calculation if an HR specialist files: $23.25 + $1,225 = $1,248.25;

    Calculation if an in-house lawyer files: $49.80 + $1,225 = 1,274.80;

    Calculation if outsourced lawyer files: $85.28 + $1,225 = $1,310.28.

    Table 2—Total Cost of Filing Form I-907 Under the H-2B Visa Program Percent of filers requesting premium processing a Number of
  • filers
  • requesting premium
  • processing b
  • Total cost to filers c Human
  • resources
  • specialist
  • In-house
  • lawyer
  • Outsourced
  • lawyer
  • 25 769 $959,904 $980,321 $1,007,605 50 1,538 1,919,809 1,960,642 2,015,211 75 2,307 2,879,713 2,940,964 3,022,816 90 2,768 3,455,655 3,529,156 3,627,379 95 2,922 3,647,636 3,725,221 3,828,900 100 3,076 3,839,617 3,921,285 4,030,421 Notes: a Assumes that all 15,000 additional H-2B visas will be filled by 3,076 petitioners. b Numbers and dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest whole number. c Calculation: (Total cost per filer of Form I-907) × Number of filers who request premium processing = Total cost to filer (rounded to the nearest dollar) Source: USCIS analysis.
    (2) Attestation Requirements

    The attestation form includes recruiting requirements, the irreparable harm standard, and document retention obligations. DOL estimates the time burden for completing and signing the form is 0.25 hour, and 1 hour for retaining documents and records relating to recruitment. The petitioner must retain documents and records of a new job order for the job opportunity placed with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) and one newspaper advertisement. DOL estimates that it would take up to one hour to file and retain documents and records relating to recruitment. Using the total per hour wage for an HR specialist ($46.49), the opportunity cost of time for an HR specialist to complete the attestation form and to retain documents relating to recruitment is $58.11.45

    45 Calculation: $46.49 (total per hour wage for an HR specialist) × 1.25 (time burden for the new attestation form and retaining recruitment documentation) = $58.11.

    Additionally, the form requires that the petitioner assess and document supporting evidence for meeting the irreparable harm standard, and retain those documents and records, which we assume will require the resources of a financial analyst (or another equivalent occupation). Using the same methodology previously described for wages, the total per hour wage for a financial analyst is $69.79.46 DOL estimates the time burden for these tasks is at least 4 hours, and 1 hour for gathering and retaining documents and records. Therefore, the total opportunity costs of time for a financial analyst to assess, document, and retain supporting evidence is $348.95.47

    46 Calculation: $47.80 (total per hour wage for a financial analyst, based on BLS wages) × 1.46 (benefits-to-wage multiplier) = $69.79.

    U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics May 2017, Financial Analysts: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes132051.htm.

    47 Calculation: $69.79 (total per hour wage for a financial analyst) × 5 hours (time burden for assessing, documenting and retention of supporting evidence demonstrating the employer is likely to suffer irreparable harm) = $348.95.

    As discussed previously, we believe that the estimated 3,076 remaining unfilled certifications for the latter half of FY 2018 would include all potential employers who might request to employ H-2B workers under this rule. This number of certifications is a reasonable proxy for the number of employers who may need to review and sign the attestation. Using this estimate for the total number of certifications, DOL estimates that the cost for HR specialists is $178,754 and for financial analysts is $1,073,370 (rounded).48 The total cost is estimated to be $1,252,124.49

    48 Calculations:

    Cost for HR Specialists: $46.49 (total per hour wage for an HR specialist) × 3,076 certifications × 1.25 hours = $178,754.

    Cost for Financial Analysts: $69.79 (total per hour wage for a financial analyst) × 3,076 certifications × 5 hours = $1,073,370.

    49 Calculation: $178,754 (total cost for HR specialists) + $1,073,370 (total cost for financial analysts) = $1,252,124.

    Employers will place a new job order for the job opportunity with the SWA serving the area of intended employment for at least 5 days beginning no later than the next business day after submitting a petition for an H-2B worker and the attestation to USCIS. DOL estimates that an HR specialist (or another equivalent occupation) would spend 1 hour to prepare a new job order and submit it to the SWA.50 DOL estimates the total cost of placing a new job order is $143,003.51

    50 The job order must address the content requirements at 20 CFR 655.18, consistent with new requirements contained in the 2016 Department of Labor Appropriations Act (Division H, Title I of Pub. L. 114-113) (2016 DOL Appropriations Act), which was enacted on December 18, 2015.

    51 Calculation: $46.49 (total per hour wage for an HR specialist) × 3,076 certifications × 1 hour (time burden for placing a job order with the SWA) = $143,003.

    Employers will also place one newspaper advertisement during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance. DOL estimates that a standard job listing in an online edition of a newspaper is $250.52 The total cost if every employer placed at least one online newspaper job listing is $769,000.53

    52 Source: The Washington Post, Online Only Job Listings (35 days), page 4 available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-stat/ad/public/static/media_kit/16-3729-01-jobs.pdf.

    53 Calculation: $250 (cost of one online newspaper job listing) × 3,076 certifications = $769,000.

    Therefore, the total cost for the attestation form is estimated to be $2,164,127.54

    54 Calculation: $1,252,124 (total cost for HR specialists and financial analysts) + $143,003 (total cost to place job order with State Workforce Agency) + $769,000 (total cost to place online newspaper job listings) = $2,164,127.

    (b) Cost to the Federal Government

    DHS anticipates some additional costs in adjudicating the additional petitions submitted as a result of the increase in cap limitation for H-2B visas. However, DHS expects these costs to be covered by the fees associated with the forms.

    (c) Benefits to Petitioners

    The inability to access H-2B workers for these entities may cause their businesses to suffer irreparable harm. Temporarily increasing the number of available H-2B visas for this fiscal year may allow some businesses to hire the additional labor resources necessary to avoid such harm. Preventing such harm may ultimately rescue the jobs of any other employees (including U.S. employees) at that establishment.

    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rule does 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 section 6 of Executive Order No. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).

    H. National Environmental Policy Act

    DHS analyzes actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to them and if so what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes the procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The CEQ regulations allow federal agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) which experience has shown do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 1508.4. DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01 establishes such Categorical Exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Dir. 023-01 Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded, DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the Categorical Exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Inst. 023-01 Rev. 01 section V.B (1)-(3).

    This rule temporarily amends the regulations implementing the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program to increase the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas for the remainder of FY 2018 based on the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, consistent with the FY 2018 Omnibus. Generally, DHS believes that NEPA does not apply to a rule which changes the number of visas which can be issued because any attempt to analyze its impact would be largely, if not completely, speculative. The Departments cannot estimate with reasonable certainty which employers will successfully petition for employees in what locations and numbers. At most, it is reasonably foreseeable that an increase of up to 15,000 visas may be issued for temporary entry into the United States in diverse industries and locations. For purposes of the cost estimates contained in the economic analysis above, DHS bases its calculations on the assumption that all 15,000 will be issued. However, estimating the cost of document filings is qualitatively different from analyzing environmental impacts. Being able to estimate the costs per filing and number of filings at least allows a calculation. Even making that assumption, analyzing the environmental impacts of 15,000 visa recipients among a current U.S. population in excess of 323 million and across a U.S. land mass of 3.794 million square miles, would require a degree of speculation that causes DHS to conclude that NEPA does not apply to this action.

    DHS has determined that even if NEPA were to apply to this action, this rule would fit within one categorical exclusion under Environmental Planning Program, DHS Instruction 023-01 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1 and does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the rule fits within Categorical Exclusion number A3(d) for rules that interpret or amend an existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.

    This rule maintains the current human environment by helping to prevent irreparable harm to certain U.S. businesses and to prevent a significant adverse effect on the human environment that would likely result from loss of jobs and income. With the exception of recordkeeping requirements, this rulemaking terminates after September 30, 2018; it is not part of a larger action and presents no extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant environmental effects. No further NEPA analysis is required.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., provides that a Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. DOL has submitted the Information Collection Request (ICR) contained in this rule to OMB and obtained approval using emergency clearance procedures outlined at 5 CFR 1320.13. The Departments note that while DOL submitted the ICR, both DHS and DOL will use the information.

    More specifically, this rule includes a new form, Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrants Workers Under Section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2 that petitioners submit to DHS. Petitioners will use this form to make the irreparable harm attestation described above. The petitioner would file the attestation with DHS. In addition, the petitioner may need to advertise the positions. Finally, the petitioner will need to retain documents and records proving compliance with this implementing rule, and must provide the documents and records to DHS and DOL staff in the event of an audit or investigation. The information collection requirements associated with this rule are summarized as follows:

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Type of Information Collection: New Collection.

    Title of the Collection: Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrant Workers Under Section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.

    Agency Form Number: Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,076.

    Average Responses per Year per Respondent: 1.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 3,076.

    Average Time per Response: 6.25 hours per application.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 19,225 hours.

    Total Estimated Other Costs Burden: $912,003.

    List of Subjects 8 CFR Part 214

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange programs, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.

    20 CFR Part 655

    Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, Employment and training, Enforcement, Foreign workers, Forest and forest products, Fraud, Health professions, Immigration, Labor, Longshore and harbor work, Migrant workers, Nonimmigrant workers, Passports and visas, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment, Wages, Working conditions.

    Department of Homeland Security 8 CFR Chapter I

    For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, part 214 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 1. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.

    2. Effective May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2018, amend § 214.2 by adding paragraph (h)(6)(x) to read as follows:
    § 214.2 Special requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of status.

    (h) * * *

    (6) * * *

    (x) Special requirements for additional cap allocations under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141. (A) Public Law 115-141. Notwithstanding the numerical limitations set forth in paragraph (h)(8)(i)(C) of this section, for fiscal year 2018 only, the Secretary has authorized up to an additional 15,000 aliens who may receive H-2B nonimmigrant visas pursuant to section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141. Notwithstanding section 248.2 of this part, an alien may not change status to H-2B nonimmigrant under this provision.

    (B) Eligibility. In order to file a petition with USCIS under this paragraph (h)(6)(x), the petitioner must:

    (1) Comply with all other statutory and regulatory requirements for H-2B classification, including but not limited to requirements in this section, under part 103 of this chapter, and under parts 655 of Title 20 and 503 of Title 29; and

    (2) Submit to USCIS, at the time the employer files its petition, a U.S. Department of Labor attestation, in compliance with 20 CFR 655.64, evidencing that without the ability to employ all of the H-2B workers requested on the petition filed pursuant to this paragraph (h)(6)(x), its business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), and that the employer will provide documentary evidence of this fact to DHS or DOL upon request.

    (C) Processing. USCIS will reject petitions filed pursuant to this paragraph (h)(6)(x) that are received after the numerical limitation has been reached or after September 14, 2018, whichever is sooner. USCIS will not approve a petition filed pursuant to this paragraph (h)(6)(x) on or after October 1, 2018.

    (D) Sunset. This paragraph (h)(6)(x) expires on October 1, 2018.

    (E) Non-severability. The requirement to file an attestation under paragraph (h)(6)(x)(B)(2) of this section is intended to be non-severable from the remainder of this paragraph (h)(6)(x); in the event that paragraph (h)(6)(x)(B)(2) of this section is enjoined or held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this paragraph (h)(6)(x) is also intended to be enjoined or held to be invalid in such jurisdiction, without prejudice to workers already present in the United States under this regulation, as consistent with law.

    Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration 20 CFR Chapter V

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the joint preamble, 20 CFR part 655 is amended as follows:

    PART 655—TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES 3. The authority citation for part 655 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Section 655.0 issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)(iii), 1101(a)(15)(H)(i) and (ii), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(6), 1182(m), (n) and (t), 1184(c), (g), and (j), 1188, and 1288(c) and (d); sec. 3(c)(1), Pub. L. 101-238, 103 Stat. 2099, 2102 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note); sec. 303(a)(8), Pub. L. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 323(c), Pub. L. 103-206, 107 Stat. 2428; sec. 412(e), Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); sec. 2(d), Pub. L. 106-95, 113 Stat. 1312, 1316 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); 29 U.S.C. 49k; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended; Pub. L. 109-423, 120 Stat. 2900; 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i); and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii).

    Subpart A issued under 8 CFR 214.2(h).

    Subpart B issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 1184(c), and 1188; and 8 CFR 214.2(h).

    Subparts F and G issued under 8 U.S.C. 1288(c) and (d); sec. 323(c), Public Law 103-206, 107 Stat. 2428; and 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, 114-74 at section 701.

    Subparts H and I issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) and (b)(1), 1182(n) and (t), and 1184(g) and (j); sec. 303(a)(8), Public Law 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 412(e), Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; 8 CFR 214.2(h); and 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, Public Law 114-74 at section 701.

    Subparts L and M issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(c) and 1182(m); sec. 2(d), Public Law 106-95, 113 Stat. 1312, 1316 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); Public Law 109-423, 120 Stat. 2900; and 8 CFR 214.2(h).

    4. Effective May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2018, add § 655.64 to read as follows:
    § 655.64 Special eligibility provisions for Fiscal Year 2018 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018.

    An employer filing a petition with USCIS under 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x) to employ H-2B workers from May 31, 2018 through September 14, 2018 must meet the following requirements:

    (a) The employer must attest on Form ETA-9142-B-CAA-2 that without the ability to employ all of the H-2B workers requested on the petition filed pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(x), its business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), and that the employer will provide documentary evidence of this fact to DHS or DOL upon request.

    (b) An employer with a start date of work before April 15, 2018 on its approved Temporary Labor Certification must conduct additional recruitment of U.S. workers as follows:

    (1) The employer must place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency, serving the area of intended employment. The employer must follow all applicable State Workforce Agency instructions for posting job orders and receive applications in all forms allowed by the State Workforce Agency, including online applications (sometimes known as “self-referrals”). The job order must contain the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment, and remain posted for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for H-2B worker(s); and

    (2) The employer must place one newspaper advertisement using an online or print format on any day of the week meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the State Workforce Agency is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance; and

    (3) The employer must hire any qualified U.S. worker who applies or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.

    (c) This section expires on October 1, 2018.

    (d) Non-severability. The requirement to file an attestation under paragraph (a) of this section is intended to be non-severable from the remainder of this section; in the event that paragraph (a) is enjoined or held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this section is also intended to be enjoined or held to be invalid in such jurisdiction, without prejudice to workers already present in the United States under this regulation, as consistent with law.

    5. Effective May 31, 2018 through September 30, 2021, add § 655.66 to read as follows:
    § 655.66 Special document retention provisions for Fiscal Years 2018 through 2021 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law 115-141.

    (a) An employer that files a petition with USCIS to employ H-2B workers in fiscal year 2018 under authority of the temporary increase in the numerical limitation under section 205 of Division M, Public Law 115-141 must maintain for a period of 3 years from the date of certification, consistent with 20 CFR 655.56 and 29 CFR 503.17, the following:

    (1) A copy of the attestation filed pursuant to regulations governing that temporary increase;

    (2) Evidence establishing that employer's business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss), if it cannot employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers in fiscal year 2018; and

    (3) If applicable, evidence of additional recruitment and a recruitment report that meets the requirements set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1), (2), and (7).

    DOL or DHS may inspect these documents upon request.

    (b) This section expires on October 1, 2021.

    Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix A—Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrant Workers Under Section 205 of Division M of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 Public Law 115-141 (March 23, 2018)

    By virtue of my signature below, I hereby certify that the following is true and correct:

    (A) I am an employer with an approved labor certification from the Department of Labor seeking permission to employ H-2B nonimmigrant workers for temporary employment in the United States.

    (B) I was granted temporary labor certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) for my business's job opportunity, which required that the worker(s) begin employment before October 1, 2018 and is currently valid.

    (C) I attest that if my business cannot employ all the H-2B nonimmigrant workers requested on my Form I-129 petition before the end of this fiscal year (September 30, 2018) in the job opportunity certified by DOL, my business is likely to suffer irreparable harm (that is, permanent and severe financial loss).

    (D) I attest that my business has a bona fide temporary need for all the H-2B nonimmigrant workers requested on the Form I-129 petition, consistent with 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(ii).

    (E) If my current labor certification contains a start date of work before April 15, 2018, I will complete a new assessment of the United States labor market in advance of H-2B nonimmigrant workers coming to the United States to begin employment before October 1, 2018, as follows:

    1. I will place a new job order for the job opportunity with the State Workforce Agency (SWA) serving the area of intended employment that contains the job assurances and contents set forth in 20 CFR 655.18 for recruitment of U.S. workers at the place of employment for at least 5 days beginning not later than the next business day after submitting a petition for an H-2B nonimmigrant worker(s) and this accompanying attestation to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;

    2. I will place one newspaper advertisement, which may be published online or in print, on any day of the week, meeting the advertising requirements of 20 CFR 655.41, during the period of time the SWA is actively circulating the job order for intrastate clearance; and

    3. I will offer the job to any qualified and available U.S. worker who or is referred for the job opportunity until 2 business days after the last date on which the job order is posted. I understand that consistent with 20 CFR 655.40(a), applicants can be rejected only for lawful job-related reasons.

    (F) I agree to retain a copy of this signed attestation form, the additional recruitment documentation, including a recruitment report that meets the requirements for recruitment reports set forth in 20 CFR 655.48(a)(1), (2) & (7), together with evidence establishing that my business meets the standard described in paragraph (C) of this attestation, for a period of 3 years from the date of certification, consistent with the document retention requirements under 20 CFR 655.66, 20 CFR 655.56, and 29 CFR 503.17. Further, I agree to provide this documentation to a DHS or DOL official upon request.

    (G) I agree to comply with all assurances, obligations, and conditions of employment set forth in the Application for Temporary Employment Certification (Form ETA-9142B and Appendix B) certified by the DOL for my business's job opportunity.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct:

    1. Name of hiring or designated official of the employer (Last Name, First Name) * 2. *DOL Case Number * 3. Signature * 4. Date signed *
    [FR Doc. 2018-11732 Filed 5-25-18; 5:10 pm] BILLING CODE P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 Class Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notification of waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for positive airway pressure devices.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is granting a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies Manufacturing. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) devices, Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) devices, and other products intended to treat sleep apnea by keeping a person's airways open during sleep.

    DATES:

    This action is effective July 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carol J. Hulme, Program Analyst, by telephone at 202-205-6347; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 8(a)(17) and 46 of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17) and 657, and SBA's implementing regulations require that recipients of Federal supply contracts (except those valued between $10,000 and $250,000) set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), historically underutilized business zones (HUBZones) or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR). 13 CFR 121.406(b). Sections 8(a)(17)(B)(iv)(II) and 46(a)(4)(B) of the Act authorize SBA to waive the NMR for a “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market.

    As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or been awarded a contract to supply the class of products within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on a combination of (1) the six digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, (2) the four digit Product Service Code (PSC), and (3) a description of the class of products.

    On February 27, 2017, SBA received a request to waive the NMR for Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Supplies under NAICS codes 339112 (surgical and medical instrument manufacturing) and 339113 (surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing), and PSC 6515 (medical and surgical instrument, equipment and supplies). According to that request, along with supporting documentation, there were no small business manufacturers or processors of CPAP devices in the Federal market.

    On September 18, 2017 (82 FR 43637), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a Notice of Intent to grant a class waiver for CPAP, BiPAP and other sleep apnea devices.

    As revealed by the two comments submitted in response to the document, there are no small business manufacturers or processors of this product in the Federal market. The first comment, dated October 19, 2017, did not include domestic small business manufacturers capable of meeting the requirement. The second comment did not identify any manufacturers.

    Therefore, in the absence of a small business manufacturer of these products, a class waiver is necessary to allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the product of any manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB), women-owned small business (WOSB), economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB), historically underutilized business zones (HUBZones) or participants in the SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program.

    More information on the NMR and Class Waivers can be found at https://www.sba.gov/contracting/contracting-officials/non-manufacturer-rule/non-manufacturer-waivers.

    David Wm. Loines, Acting Director, Office of Government Contracting.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11658 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. RM18-7-000; Order No. 846] Withdrawal of Pleadings AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; errata notification.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM18-7-000) which published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, May 23, 2018.

    DATES:

    Effective June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. On May 17, 2018, the Commission issued a Final Rule in the above captioned proceeding. Withdrawal of Pleadings, 163 FERC ¶ 61,118 (2018), see 83 FR 23807. This errata notification hereby corrects paragraph 11 of the Final Rule by deleting the second sentence that was inadvertently included. Accordingly, paragraph 11 is corrected to read as follows: “These regulations are effective June 22, 2018.”

    Issued: May 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11639 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 490 [Docket No. FHWA-2017-0025] RIN 2125-AF76 National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule repeals the performance management measure that assessed the percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, from the reference year 2017, on the National Highway System (NHS) (also referred to as the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) measure). The GHG measure was one of several performance measures that FHWA required State departments of transportation (State DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to use to assess performance in a variety of areas. After considering the comments received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 5, 2017, FHWA has decided to repeal the GHG measure.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective July 2, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information: Michael Culp, Office of Planning, Environment and Realty, (202) 366-9229; for legal information: Christopher Richardson, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1383, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access and Filing

    The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published at 82 FR 46427 on October 5, 2017.1 A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, and all background material may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website, which is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at http://www.ofr.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at http://www.thefederalregister.org.

    1 82 FR 46427 Pg. 46427-46433: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/05/2017-21442/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-performance-of-the-national-highway-system.

    Table of Contents for Supplementary Information I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Deregulatory Action B. Summary of the Deregulatory Action in Question C. Costs and Benefits II. Acronyms and Abbreviations III. Regulatory History IV. Decision to Repeal the GHG Performance Measure A. Summary of Decision B. Reasons for the Repeal of the GHG Measure C. Impact of Repeal on Effectiveness of Performance Management Program V. Response to Comments Received on the NPRM A. Costs and Benefits of the GHG Measure B. Utility and Burden of the GHG Measure C. Duplication of Efforts at Federal, State or Local Levels D. Appropriateness of the Measure Methodology E. Alternatives to Current GHG Performance Measure F. Other Comments VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment) E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. National Environmental Policy Act H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) L. Regulation Identifier Number I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Deregulatory Action

    The purpose of this deregulatory action is to repeal the requirement that State departments of transportation (State DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) assess the performance of the National Highway System (NHS) under the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) by measuring the percent change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on the NHS from calendar year 2017 (also referred to as the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) measure). This measure was calculated using data on fuel use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). After further consideration and review of the comments received, as well as relevant statutory authorities, we have decided to repeal this measure. This repeal will alleviate a burden on State DOTs and MPOs that imposed costs with no predictable level of benefits. This final rule does not prohibit State DOTs and MPOs from choosing voluntarily to measure and assess CO2 emissions.

    B. Summary of the Deregulatory Action in Question

    This final rule repeals the GHG measure. By repealing this measure, FHWA will no longer require State DOTs and MPOs to undertake administrative activities to establish targets, calculate their progress toward their selected targets, report to FHWA, and determine a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if they failed to make significant progress during a performance period.2

    2See 23 CFR 490.105, 490.107, 490.109.

    C. Costs and Benefits

    This final rule is a deregulatory action estimated to result in cost savings of $10.89 million, which rounds to $10.9 million discounted at 7 percent over 9 years. This equates to annualized cost savings of $1.67 million at a 7 percent discount rate, or $1.64 million at a 3 percent discount rate. Table 1 displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) A-4 Accounting Statement as a summary of the cost savings associated with repealing the GHG measure.

    Table 1—OMB A-4 Accounting Statement Category Estimates Primary Low High Units Year
  • dollar
  • Discount
  • rate
  • %
  • Period
  • covered
  • (years)
  • Source/citation
    Benefits Annualized Monetized ($ millions/year) None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • NA
  • NA
  • 7
  • 3
  • NA
  • NA
  • Not Quantified.
    Annualized Quantified None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • NA
  • NA
  • 7
  • 3
  • NA
  • NA
  • Not Quantified.
    Qualitative More informed decision-making on project, program, and policy choices. Final RIA. Costs Annualized Monetized ($/year) ($1,671,758)
  • ($1,644,687)
  • 2014
  • 2014
  • 7
  • 3
  • 9
  • 9
  • Final RIA.
    Annualized Quantified None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • 2014
  • 2014
  • 7
  • 3
  • 9
  • 9
  • Final RIA.
    Qualitative Transfers None From/To From: To: Effects State, Local, and/or Tribal Government ($1,671,758)
  • ($1,644,687)
  • 2014
  • 2014
  • 7
  • 3
  • 9
  • 9
  • Final RIA.
    Small Business Not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. NA NA NA Final RIA.
    II. Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym or abbreviation Term AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AGC Associated General Contractors of America. AMPO Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. APA Administrative Procedure Act. Caltrans California Department of Transportation. CARB California Air Resources Board. CFR Code of Federal Regulations. CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. CO2 Carbon dioxide. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation. EO Executive Order. EIA Energy Information Agency, U.S. Department of Energy. EIS Environmental Impact Statement. FAHP Federal-aid Highway Program. FAST Act Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. FHWA Federal Highway Administration. FR Federal Register. GHG Greenhouse gas. HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System. MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations. NEPA National Environmental Policy Act. NHPA National Historic Preservation Act. NHPP National Highway Performance Program. NHS National Highway System. NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking. NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council. OMB Office of Management and Budget. PM3 “Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” The third performance measure rule. PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis. RIN Regulatory Identification Number. State DOTs State departments of transportation. U.S.C. United States Code. VMT Vehicle miles traveled. III. Regulatory History

    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) transforms the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) continued these requirements. Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of the FAHP and provides a framework to support improved investment decisionmaking through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals.

    As part of this mandate, FHWA issued a set of three related national performance management measure rules for State DOTs and MPOs to use to assess performance. In these rules, FHWA established performance measures in 12 areas generalized as follows: (1) Serious injuries per VMT; (2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate System; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate National Highway System (NHS); (7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) performance of the Interstate System; (9) performance of the non-Interstate NHS; (10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) traffic congestion; and (12) on-road mobile source emissions.

    The third performance management measures NPRM (PM3 NPRM) was published on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23806).3 The PM3 NPRM proposed a set of national measures for State DOTs to use to assess the performance of the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS to carry out the NHPP; to assess freight movement on the Interstate System; and to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions for the purpose of carrying out the CMAQ Program. In the preamble to the PM3 NPRM, FHWA sought public comment on whether and how to establish a CO2 emissions measure in the PM3 Final Rule.

    3 Third performance measure NPRM: “Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (RIN 2125-AF54): https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-04-22/pdf/2016-08014.pdf.

    The FHWA published the third performance measure final rule (PM3 Final Rule) on January 18, 2017, at 82 FR 5971.4 As finalized, the rule measured total annual tons of CO2 emissions from all on-road mobile sources. For a discussion of the comments received, FHWA's response to those comments, and FHWA's rationale for adopting the GHG measure, please see the PM3 Final Rule.

    4https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00681.pdf.

    On October 5, 2017, FHWA published an NPRM proposing to repeal the GHG measure (82 FR 46427),5 while seeking additional public comment on whether to retain or revise the GHG measure established in the PM3 Final Rule. The rulemaking sought additional information that may not have been available during the development of the PM3 Final Rule. The NPRM was published with a 30-day comment period set to close on November 6, 2017. The comment period was extended to November 15, 2017,6 in response to requests submitted to the docket.

    5 82 FR 46427, October 5, 2017 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/05/2017-21442/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-performance-of-the-national-highway-system.

    6 82 FR 51786, November 8, 2017 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/08/2017-24345/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-performance-of-the-national-highway-system.

    IV. Decision To Repeal the GHG Performance Measure A. Summary of Decision

    The FHWA initiated this rulemaking after reviewing existing and pending regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13771 and 13777. On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, titled, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” which requires Federal agencies to take proactive measures to reduce the costs associated with complying with Federal regulations. In addition, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, titled, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which requires Federal agencies to designate a Regulatory Reform Officer and a Regulatory Reform Task Force to carry out the initiatives described in that Executive Order.

    The objective of our review was to determine whether changes would be appropriate to eliminate duplicative regulations and streamline regulatory processes. Based upon this review, DOT identified the GHG measure of the PM3 Final Rule as being potentially duplicative of existing efforts in some States, and as potentially imposing unnecessary burdens on State DOTs and MPOs that were not contemplated by Congress. In addition, when the GHG measure was adopted, there were numerous comments regarding FHWA's legal authority to adopt the measure. Due to those concerns and because the performance management statute (23 U.S.C. 150) does not require a GHG measure, FHWA decided to reconsider its legal interpretation of the statute under which the GHG measure was adopted. All of these concerns contributed to the decision to publish the NPRM proposing to repeal the GHG measure.7

    7 82 FR 46427, October 5, 2017 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/05/2017-21442/national-performance-management-measures-assessing-performance-of-the-national-highway-system.

    The FHWA's decision to repeal is based on the combined effects of three primary factors. These are: (1) Reconsideration of the legal authority under which the GHG measure was promulgated; (2) the cost of the GHG measure when considered in relation to the lack of demonstrated benefits; and (3) the potential duplication between information produced by the GHG measure and information produced by other initiatives related to measuring CO2 emissions.

    FHWA adopted the GHG measure as a matter of discretion in interpreting 23 U.S.C. 150(c), as the statute does not explicitly address CO2 emissions or require FHWA to include a GHG measure among the national performance measures. Repeal of the measure, for the reasons described in this final rule, is also a matter within FHWA's discretion, and repeal does not conflict with the statute. Further, repeal of the FHWA GHG measure does not preclude State DOTs and MPOs from tracking CO2 levels related to their own transportation programs, or from independently establishing measures and targets outside the national performance management program.

    The FHWA also considered alternatives to the repeal of the GHG measure. This consideration included whether FHWA should retain the measure as adopted in the PM3 Final Rule, or adopt a modified version of the GHG measure within the framework of the national performance management program. The FHWA did not identify an alternative that would address its concerns with the GHG measure. For more information about the alternatives considered, including comments received on this topic and FHWA's responses, please see Section V.E.

    B. Reasons for the Repeal of the GHG Measure

    As noted above, in addition to the comments received, FHWA's decision to repeal the GHG measure is based on three primary factors.

    1. Reconsideration of Legal Authority To Adopt GHG Measure

    When FHWA adopted the GHG measure in January 2017, we noted that we had received comments from supporters and opponents addressing FHWA's legal authority to adopt such a measure.8 In response to the NPRM issued for this rule, we received an equally divided set of comments regarding our legal authority to adopt the GHG measure. Questions about FHWA's legal authority arose from the express provisions of 23 U.S.C. 150.

    8 See 82 FR 5993 (Jan. 18, 2017).

    In the PM3 Final Rule, FHWA concluded that it had the discretion to interpret the term “performance” as it relates to the Interstate and non-Interstate NHS, pursuant to the Secretary's authority set forth in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(IV)-(V). FHWA's prior interpretation of the term “performance” included “environmental performance” and, consequently, FHWA determined that the adoption of the GHG measure was thus not outside the scope of section 150.9 Upon reconsideration, as explained below, we have determined that although the statute confers upon FHWA the discretion to determine the proper interpretation of the statute, FHWA's prior interpretation was based on a strained reading of the statutory language in section 150, and one that did not fully consider the limitations imposed by the statute itself and by other relevant considerations.

    9 82 FR 5994-95.

    As outlined in the PM3 Final Rule, FHWA supported its discretion to broadly interpret the term “performance” with four arguments.10 First, FHWA relied on other provisions in Title 23 that make the environment an integral part of the FAHP, such as the national goal of environmental sustainability in 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(6), to demonstrate support for its interpretation. Second, FHWA asserted that its interpretation of “performance” was supported by numerous other FHWA actions, including various reports and guidance related to CO2 emissions, that treat the environment, including global sustainability and global climate change, as part of a State's highway system performance. Third, FHWA noted that section 150(c)(3) mandated the measures for the purpose of carrying out 23 U.S.C. 119, which establishes the National Highway Performance Program. The purposes of the NHPP, as set forth in 23 U.S.C. 119, included providing support for the condition and performance of the NHS. Specifically, section 119(e) calls for a performance-driven asset management plan that would support progress toward achievement of the national goals identified in section 150(b), which include environmental sustainability. Finally, FHWA identified other FHWA statutory provisions found in Title 23 as potentially supporting its authority to address CO2 emissions through the PM3 rulemaking. FHWA argued that because these provisions identified interrelationships among the environment, energy conservation, infrastructure performance, and performance-based decisionmaking, when read together, they provided a basis for FHWA to conclude that assessing infrastructure performance under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3) may properly encompass environmental performance and, by extension, assessment of CO2 emissions.11

    10 82 FR 5993-96.

    11 Id.

    What is notable about these four arguments, however, is that none of them points to any statutory provision that specifically directs or requires FHWA to adopt a GHG measure. Instead they encourage State DOTs and MPOs to consider a variety of ways to incorporate environmental considerations under their existing authority. Further, even though FHWA has taken other actions, such as issuing reports and guidance regarding GHG emissions and climate change, those actions were not taken to fulfill the statutory mandate of section 150, and therefore, do not lead to the conclusion that FHWA is required to adopt a GHG measure. Since those actions were taken to fulfill other statutory obligations and policy goals, they do not lead to the conclusion that FHWA must adopt a comprehensive performance requirement, such as the GHG measure.

    It is true that section 150 establishes seven national goals for the Federal-aid Highway program (FAHP), including “environmental sustainability.” 12 However, subsection 150(c), in directing the Secretary to establish performance measures, imposes a specific limitation: the Secretary “shall . . . limit the performance measures only to those described in [subsection c].” 13 Subsection (c) specifically directs the Secretary to establish measures regarding the pavement and bridge conditions of the National Highway System (NHS), the performance of the Interstate System and the National Highway System (excluding the Interstate System), the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ), and national freight movement.14 Though environmental sustainability is one of the enumerated national goals in section 150, it is not one of the categories of performance measures specifically mentioned in subsection (c).

    12 23 U.S.C. 150(b)(6).

    13 Section 150(c)(2)(C).

    14 Section 150(c)(3)-(6).

    Furthermore, in exercising its discretion previously, FHWA failed to fully consider the provisions in the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) statute, 23 U.S.C. 119, when it originally decided to rely on the section 150(b) national goal of environmental sustainability to establish the GHG measure. The FHWA did not evaluate whether the national goals language in section 119(d)(1)(A) imposed limitations on how FHWA would meet the national goals enumerated in section 150 when establishing NHPP performance measures under section 150(c)(3). Section 119(d)(1)(A) defines eligibility criteria for projects funded under NHPP. While the provision references achievement of national performance goals, the statute also delineates which national performance goals are relevant to the NHPP: “. . . national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, congestion reduction, system reliability, or freight movement on the [NHS].” While these goals are consistent with an interpretation of “performance” that focuses on the physical condition of the system and the efficiency of transportation operations across the system, they do not support FHWA's prior, broader interpretation of “performance” under section 150(c)(3), which encompassed environmental performance. FHWA, in exercising its discretion to interpret the statute, now concludes that a narrower interpretation of the term “performance” is the better view of the statutory scheme and is more consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of the statute.

    The structure of section 150 itself supports a narrower construction of the section 150 performance measures authorization than previously adopted by FHWA. Congress specifically directed the Secretary of Transportation to “limit performance measures only to those described in [section 150(c)]” in establishing the performance measures. One of those authorized performance measures, section 150(c)(5), directs the Secretary to establish measures for States to use in assessing on-road mobile source emissions. After reconsideration, FHWA believes that because Congress specifically designated a part of section 150(c) for on-road mobile source emissions measures, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend the other parts of section 150(c) to be used to address other similar or related performance measures, such as the GHG measure. At the same time, by placing the on-road mobile source emissions provision in section 150(c)(5), Congress limited the types of emissions that could be the subject of a performance measure to those listed in the CMAQ statute (23 U.S.C. 149(b)). CO2 is not among those pollutants. Given the long history of congressional actions relating to on-road mobile source emissions and the CMAQ Program, FHWA must presume that Congress understood both the breadth of the term “on-road mobile source emissions,” and the narrowness of the criteria pollutants covered by the CMAQ Program. It is reasonable to conclude that Congress was well aware that, because CO2 emissions are not a criteria pollutant covered by the CMAQ Program, section 150(c)(5) could not be used to create a performance measure for CO2. Nothing in section 150 suggests that Congress wanted the Secretary to go beyond the express emissions provision in section 150(c)(5), to undertake an expansive program relating to on-road mobile source emissions. Had it wanted to do so, Congress could have crafted such an express provision, but it did not do so. Given this statutory analysis, the reasons we have explained above, and upon reconsideration of our prior interpretation, we believe that a narrower interpretation of “performance” as it relates to the “performance” of the Interstate System and the National Highway System is more consistent with the language of section 150. Accordingly, we have concluded that the term “performance” as it relates to the Interstate System and the National Highway System is better read not to encompass measures relating to CO2, as previously concluded by FHWA in adopting the GHG measure in January 2017.

    Moreover, consistent with our reinterpretation of the statutory language of subsection 150(c), FHWA believes the better approach is to focus on implementing the CMAQ Program, as Congress directed, through FHWA's establishment of performance measures for States to assess on-road mobile source emissions pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(5). One reason is that the CMAQ statute reflects a more localized approach that is based on each State's nonattainment and maintenance areas for the covered pollutants.15 FHWA believes this tailored approach is more appropriate for the Federal-aid highway program than attempting to use a GHG measure to induce States to address global climate concerns. This view is supported by section 150(d)(2), which contemplates a localized approach by granting States the discretion to set different performance targets for urbanized and rural areas in developing and implementing the performance measures. Further, the CMAQ Program contains substantive requirements that are designed directly to ameliorate the localized effects of the covered pollutants.

    15 23 U.S.C. 149.

    Finally, although FHWA has decided to repeal the GHG measure, many sources of information exist regarding GHGs and their impact on the environment, on both regional and local levels, which State DOTs and MPOs can continue to draw upon in evaluating their transportation projects. In addition, there are other comprehensive statutory schemes, such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which exist to address issues such as the environment and energy conservation.

    2. Costs and Burdens of the Measure

    Reducing regulatory burdens is a FHWA priority. FHWA is giving particular attention to opportunities to reduce burdens imposed by existing regulations through consideration of their repeal, replacement, or modification. Our efforts are guided by a number of Executive Orders, including Section 5 of Executive Order 12688, Section 2 of Executive Order 13777, and Section 3 of Executive Order 13783, titled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.”

    After considering the comments received in this rulemaking and the revised regulatory impact assessment (RIA), FHWA has decided that the GHG measure imposes unnecessary regulatory burdens on State DOTs and MPOs with no predictable benefits. FHWA is concerned about the potential the GHG measure has to cause adverse impacts on overall State DOT and MPO efforts to implement the national performance management program. FHWA assigns a high priority to the successful implementation of the national performance management program. The removal of the GHG measure from the program reduces the number of measures the State DOTs and MPOs must address, and allows those entities to focus their resources on implementing the remaining measures. We heard from commenters that the GHG measure would impose additional resource requirements that would either adversely affect the ability of State DOTs and MPOs to implement the national performance management program, or take focus away from the core mission of FHWA.

    These costs include the resources needed to obtain and review the required data, to calculate the measure, and to coordinate and select a CO2 emissions target. The FHWA considered comments received about costs to set and report targets, and to calculate the metric. Also, if a State DOT does not achieve its selected target under the previous rule, it would incur additional costs to develop and report on actions the State DOT will take to make progress towards its target.16

    16 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7) and 23 CFR 490.109.

    Other types of costs are harder to predict with reasonable certainty, such as the GHG measure's potentially adverse impact in rural States. While the GHG measure did not require States to reduce CO2 emissions, a State could feel pressured to change its mix of projects to reduce CO2 emissions. Rural States may face more challenges, and indirect costs, in adapting their programs to reduce CO2 emissions. The challenges are rooted in the type of driving typically done in rural areas, and the predominantly system-preservation focus of rural States' highway programs. Commenters 17 indicated rural residents drive relatively long distances, often in heavy-duty vehicles. Such States may have limited ability to reduce VMT. In some rural States, such as Alaska, on-road vehicle CO2 emissions represent a much smaller share of total CO2 emissions than in other States or in the United States as a whole.18 For rural States, this may mean shifting away from their typical system-preservation focus.19 A reduction in system preservation investments could result in adverse cost impacts because the failure to take timely preservation measures can result in higher costs over the life of a facility and other unintended results.20 According to one commenter,21 failure to preserve highway pavements could increase CO2 emissions as drivers reduce speeds due to rough surfaces.

    17 DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125-4.

    18 Alaska DOT and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, FHWA-2017-0025-0135-3.

    19 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2.

    20See, e.g. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Primer, FHWA (August 2002) at page 10, available online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/lcca/010621.pdf (as of May 1, 2018).

    21 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2.

    While the RIA for this final rule estimated marginally lower total costs than the RIA in the NPRM, FHWA reaches the same conclusion regarding the costs and burdens of the GHG measure. That analysis, summarized in Section VI.A. of this document, found that the aggregate costs to State DOTs and MPOs to implement the GHG measure would be $10.9 million over 9 years, discounted at 7 percent.22 These costs represent a burden that would be imposed on State DOTs and MPOs with no discernable benefits.

    22 Rounded from $10.89 million discounted at 7 percent.

    While some commenters argued that the GHG measure would produce wide-ranging benefits, it is important to recognize that the measure itself did not require reductions in CO2 emissions and would not have produced predictable climate change effects. The measure did not require State DOTs or MPOs to adopt targets that reflect declining emissions levels. As described in the PM3 Final Rule,23 the benefits that may possibly flow from the GHG measure came from its potential to influence State DOT and MPO investment decisions, and it is not possible to conclude with certainty the GHG measure would cause State DOTs and MPOs to make decisions that change CO2 emissions levels. Similarly, it is not possible to conclude with certainty that repeal of the rule will cause State DOTs and MPOs to make decisions that result in increases in CO2 emissions. The GHG measure had no legal power to force any change in CO2 emissions levels, and the GHG measure had no predictable effect on those emissions. The GHG measure required very limited actions (though with some cost) from State DOTs and MPOs, and those actions were purely administrative in character.24 FHWA concludes that it is not possible to predict, with any reasonable degree of certainty, the extent to which the influence effects of the GHG measure might result in actual changes in emissions levels. Thus, FHWA does not believe the speculative and uncertain benefits are a sufficient reason to retain the GHG measure, especially given the very definite costs associated with the measure.

    23 National Performance Management Measures: Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (RIN 2125-AF54): https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00681.pdf.

    24 Under the previous rule, State DOTs and MPOs were required to set CO2 emissions targets, which can be for declining emission levels, increasing emission levels, or unchanged emission levels, as compared to a 2017 baseline. State DOTs were required to use data from existing sources to calculate the CO2 emissions measure at various points in time, reporting the results to FHWA. If the State DOT did not meet its target, it was required to report to FHWA on actions the State DOT would take to reach its selected target.

    3. Duplication of Other Efforts

    FHWA also considered whether the GHG measure is duplicative, as raised by some commenters. In addition, the recent executive mandates to reduce regulatory costs and burdens mean FHWA must consider whether the information the measure would produce duplicates information produced by others.

    FHWA considered that there are other existing methods for producing nearly the same information as would result from the implementation of the GHG measure, using publicly available data and methodologies, if that information is desired. FHWA also recognized that the repeal of the measure would not affect the ability of State DOTs and MPOs to create their own CO2 emissions measures and targets independently outside the national performance management program. Indeed, several State DOTs and MPOs said that they are already tracking CO2 emissions, either voluntarily or to comply with State requirements.25

    25 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132-10; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-0158-6; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195-7; City of Portland, OR, FHWA-2017-0025-0234-3; Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordination Agency (NOACA), FHWA-2017-0025-0243-2.

    Other Federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), have undertaken regulatory and other efforts to address CO2 emissions. Among those efforts is the annual DOE publication of State-by-State data on CO2 emissions for the transportation sector.26 That DOE transportation data includes CO2 emissions from all mobile sources (e.g., aviation, highway), not just motor vehicles (although the published table does not break the CO2 emissions data into subcategories, such as CO2 emissions on the NHS). Thus, the information published by EPA and DOE overlaps with, but is not precisely identical to, the information that would be produced by calculation of the GHG measure. However, that existing collection of data does provide States with trend information on CO2 emissions from mobile sources in each State, and the highway component is based on the same fuel sales information used for the GHG measure.

    26See “CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion—Million Metric Tons CO2 (MMTCO2),” available online at https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/state-co2-emissions-fossil-fuel-combustion (as of January 19, 2018).

    In light of these circumstances, FHWA now concludes that the GHG measure in the performance management program is unnecessary. The information available through DOE informs State DOTs and MPOs whether transportation CO2 emissions in their States are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Although this existing information is provided at the transportation sector level, rather than the systems level, the information addresses the same ultimate point as the GHG measure. FHWA acknowledges there may be instances when States or MPOs may want to have CO2 emissions data for specific transportation systems or facilities, rather than data at the transportation sector level. State DOTs and MPOs are free to create such data, if they wish, by using publicly available data and existing methodologies.

    Pursuant to the mandates of Executive Order 13771, Executive Order 13777, and Executive Order 13783, FHWA concluded that the data needed to support the GHG measure is at least somewhat duplicative of the EPA and DOE data on CO2 emissions. That duplication, together with other options States and MPOs can use independently to produce more specific data if they wish, reduces the need for the FHWA GHG measure, and makes imposition of incremental regulatory costs less supportable. Even if the degree of duplication is limited, FHWA believes the duplication in information produced by the Federal government is a concern and a factor that supports repeal of the GHG measure.

    FHWA believes the repeal of the GHG performance measure will reduce the existing duplication, streamline the regulations, and reduce the potential for the confusion that can arise when multiple Federal and State entities impose different requirements for categorizing and measuring CO2 emissions. FHWA acknowledges that multi-jurisdictional regulation of the same matter does occur, but FHWA believes that it ought to be avoided where reasonably possible and not inconsistent with statutory requirements.

    C. Impact of Repeal on Effectiveness of Performance Management Program

    In the context of the national performance management program, FHWA believes the GHG performance measure can be repealed without harm to the overall effectiveness of the national performance management program. As described in the performance management statute, the purpose of the program is to provide a means to the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the FAHP, and improving project decisionmaking through performance-based planning and programming. The program is broad-based, and FHWA has substantial discretion in determining which types of performance measures will be given priority and adopted as national measures. After the repeal of the GHG measure, the remaining 17 national performance measures will fully meet the 23 U.S.C. 150 requirements, and serve the interests of the FAHP. The transparency and accountability effects of the national measures are unaffected by the repeal. The repeal of the GHG measure will permit State DOTs and MPOs to reallocate resources they would have used to implement the GHG measure, providing a potential benefit to implementation efforts for the remaining measures.

    V. Response to Comments Received on the NPRM

    FHWA received 251 comment submissions to the public docket on the proposed NPRM to repeal the GHG measure. Many submittals were signed by multiple organizations or representatives. This section of the preamble provides a response to the most significant issues raised in the comments received.

    A. Costs and Benefits of the GHG Measure

    As part of the rulemaking that was finalized in January 2017, FHWA estimated the incremental costs associated with the new requirements for a GHG measure that represented a change to current practices of DOT, State DOTs, and MPOs. The 9-year, discounted cost to comply with the GHG measure was estimated at $10.9 million in the PM3 Final Rule.27 In the NPRM to repeal the GHG measure, FHWA used this same $10.9 million figure as the amount of cost savings that would be achieved.

    27 Rounded from $10.96 million discounted at 7 percent.

    Commenters who supported the repeal of the GHG measure cited two primary reasons related to its costs. First, commenters argued that requiring the GHG measure diverts resources during a time of limited State resources, which could potentially affect their ability to deliver projects and programs, implement existing performance measures, and provide other transportation investments. Second, commenters argued that FHWA underestimated additional burdens of complying with the GHG measure requirement, though no further detail on those additional costs was provided.

    Commenters who stated that the measure should be retained cited a number of reasons as well. These commenters felt that the benefits would outweigh the costs of the measure and that FHWA overestimated the cost of compliance. Some commenters noted that several States and MPOs are already tracking CO2 emissions, either voluntarily or to comply with State requirements, and that repealing the GHG measure would, therefore, provide little if any savings to those particular entities. Other commenters argued that the cost of complying with the GHG measure is small when considered in relation to overall investments in transportation infrastructure, and that costs are “negligible” when spread out across State DOTs and MPOs. In response to the NPRM's request for comments on any costs to States associated with the NHPP “significant progress” determination for the GHG measure,28 some noted that States that failed to meet their targets would need to document actions that would be taken to achieve the target in the future. However, the commenters indicated such States would likely need to perform ongoing investment-decision analysis anyway and, therefore, preparation of the action plan would not incur a significant additional burden.

    28See 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7).

    Several commenters also discussed that the proposed repeal did not take into account the benefits of keeping the GHG measure, such as foregone benefits associated with reduced household transportation costs, congestion, and delay. One commenter provided an analysis claiming that even minimal reductions in CO2 emissions, when monetized using FHWA's estimate of the social cost of carbon, would yield monetary benefits that would exceed the estimated cost of complying with the GHG measure. Other commenters 29 cited as benefits the ability to compare CO2 emission rates with peer regions and States, measure and communicate the effect of transportation investments on CO2 emissions region-wide, and track emissions to set business goals.

    29 Oregon Environmental Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0130-2; Metropolitan Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0140-3; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195-6; U.S. Green Building Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0247.

    Finally, several commenters 30 said that without the GHG measure, the transportation-investment decisions by States and MPOs would result in increased CO2 emissions, which would result in increased economic costs from climate change. Many of them argued that these costs would exceed the benefits of repealing the GHG measure, and that the RIA did not estimate benefits.

    30 Oregon Environmental Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0130-1 and -2; Safe Routes to School National Partnership, FHWA-2017-0025-0133; Diaz, FHWA-2017-0025-0143; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162-10; Mass Comment Campaign led by NRDC, FHWA-2017-0025-0184; Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, FHWA-2017-0025-0189; Joint submission led by NRDC (12), FHWA-2017-0025-0190-3, -4, and -5; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195-1, -4, -6, and -7; Transportation for America, FHWA-2017-0025-0200-4; NOACA, FHWA-2017-0025-0243-2; Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, FHWA-2017-0025-0244-2; TRANSCOM, FHWA-2017-0025-0253.

    FHWA Response

    FHWA reviewed the comments relating to the costs and benefits associated with keeping the GHG measure, including establishing performance targets, assessing and reporting on progress toward meeting those targets, and calculating the GHG-related system performance metrics and measures. FHWA cannot accurately and confidently estimate the amount and value of the likely benefits of the GHG measure, and thus FHWA is not persuaded that the benefits of the GHG measure would justify its costs to States and MPOs. As with the other PM3 measures, there are requirements to set targets, but the GHG measure does not mandate changes in State DOT or MPO decisions on investments or management of the NHS relative to the measure or those targets. The GHG measure relies on influencing the behavior of State DOTs and MPOs. The measure does not require States or MPOs to reduce CO2 emissions levels. Accordingly, any changes in CO2 emissions levels would be caused by the independent actions of State DOTs and MPOs when they make transportation-investment and operations decisions, and not as a direct result of the GHG measure. Any actions those entities might take to change the CO2 emissions levels associated with their portions of the NHS would occur only as part of a mix of issues they consider when making transportation-investment decisions. Many of the competing issues, such as safety, mobility, and congestion relief, would usually be of higher priority. Therefore, there is greater uncertainty about how much, if at all, overall agency decisions would be different if a GHG measure were in place versus not having it as a PM3 measure. FHWA notes that the RIA conducted for this rulemaking cannot clearly show that the GHG measure “is necessary,” 31 as per OMB Circular A-4.

    31 See OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003 and Economic Assessment: Repeal of Green House Gas Performance Measure. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.

    Regarding comments relating to the cost and burden of the GHG measure, FHWA carefully considered whether to adjust its analysis of the relative costs of the GHG measure and assessment of the measure's burden on States and MPOs. With respect to the comments that specifically addressed the estimated hours to calculate the GHG-related system performance metrics and measures, FHWA carefully considered them while preparing this final rule's RIA, refined the estimate of the number of hours it would take State DOTs to calculate the GHG measure, and conducted multiple sensitivity analyses. Commenters stated that the burden to establish performance targets or to assess and report on progress toward meeting those targets would be minimal. Comments regarding other factors that could reduce the overall burden to States and MPOs, such as future technology improvements and mutual assistance among States, were also considered. The final rule's RIA estimated marginally lower total costs than the NPRM's RIA, but this does not lead FHWA to a different conclusion regarding the costs and burdens of the GHG measure.

    FHWA reviewed comments regarding the fact that some States are already preparing a similar (or the same) GHG measure, independent of the rule, and that FHWA should therefore lower its estimated costs of implementing the GHG measure. The NPRM's accompanying RIA already assumed that some States are doing so, estimating that 42 of 52 States would have additional costs related to the GHG measure. None of the comments received specified a different estimate and this conclusion remains unchanged in the RIA for the final rule.

    While reviewing the comments that the total cost of the GHG measure is small relative to total annual expenditures on transportation, FHWA noted that it is required to look at the total costs of implementing the GHG measure and balance them against the total benefits directly due to that measure, not against another metric, such as overall transportation spending. Similarly, comments about the total costs per State or MPO on a per entity basis are not pertinent and do not address the fact that FHWA is required to analyze overall costs against overall benefits, not total costs relative to other costs, expenses, revenues, or other measures.

    In reviewing public comments and estimated costs of the proposed rule, FHWA considered the fact that alternative ways exist in which the same information could be collected but with less burden on States and MPOs. Data to calculate the GHG measure by State is already publicly available and can be calculated by a single person for all States at once, rather than having each State perform individual calculations. Under this scenario, overall efficiencies should lower the total costs of calculating the GHG measure.

    FHWA reviewed the comments on the forgone benefits of repealing the GHG measure requirement. FHWA carefully considered the comments that the GHG measure would lead to decreases in CO2 emissions, which the commenters thought would lead to other benefits, including fewer negative impacts on people's health and the natural environment. To attribute such health and environmental benefits to the GHG measure, FHWA must be confident that implementation of the GHG measure would result in different transportation-investment decisions by State and local agencies that directly cause reductions in CO2 emissions. As noted by commenters, some agencies are already calculating a GHG-type measure for their State and others are not. Since, under the GHG measure, the State DOT can choose to establish its own GHG targets for a rise or decrease in CO2, the States that are more concerned with CO2 emissions are likely to set more aggressive targets. In such circumstances, FHWA believes that it is not possible to determine that the presence or absence of the GHG measure will result in changes in the overall set of investment transportation decisions by State and local agencies in the next few years. This uncertainty supports FHWA's decision to repeal the GHG measure.

    FHWA also carefully considered the comments stating that the GHG measure would lead to reductions in household transportation costs, congestion and delay, and transportation infrastructure and maintenance costs. In order for these benefits to be attributable to the GHG measure, the implementation of the GHG measure would need to result in different investment decisions by State and local agencies that would allow people to travel faster and more cheaply and that would be more cost effective to build and maintain. FHWA is not confident that including the GHG measure with other performance management metrics will result in transportation investments that are more efficient to develop, operate, and use. The comment that the GHG measure would also help foster a more competitive and growing economy is related to the above arguments; it is based on the presumption that the measure would result in transportation investment choices that are more efficient for the economy, which is not evident at this time. States wishing to compare themselves to their peers can do so independent of the presence of the GHG measure since the necessary data for all States is already publicly available.

    Regarding the comments that the NPRM's RIA does not include a quantitative assessment of the potential benefits of keeping the GHG measure, FHWA notes that the RIA is not required to include quantitative analysis (of either costs or benefits) if the agency does not have the necessary data and metrics to do so. OMB Circular A-4 states that some important benefits and costs may be difficult or impossible to quantify or monetize, given current data and methods. The circular advises agencies to carry out a careful evaluation of non-quantifiable and non-monetized benefits and costs.32 Based on this guidance, the RIA for both the NPRM and for this final rule include a qualitative analysis of potential forgone benefits resulting from repeal of the GHG measure.

    32https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.

    B. Utility and Burden of the GHG Measure Utility of the GHG Measure

    Twenty-eight commenters discussed whether the GHG measure, including the methodology adopted in the PM3 Final Rule, provides meaningful utility for assessment of environmental performance of the NHS. Twenty-three 33 commenters said that the GHG measure does provide utility, while five commenters 34 said that it does not provide utility.

    33 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132; Rails to Trails Conservancy, FHWA-2017-0025-0139-2; Metropolitan Council, FHWA-2017-140-1; Metropolitan Area Planning Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0150; Stratford MPO, FHWA-2017-0025-0151; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152; Oregon Metro, FHWA-2017-0025-0160; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-0158; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162; Mass comment campaign led by U.S. PIRG (28), FHWA-2017-0025-0172-2; Joint submission led by NRDC (12), FHWA-2017-0025-0190-7, -8, and -9; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195-6; Mass comment campaign sponsored by Transportation for America (87), FHWA-2017-0025-0197; Transportation for America, FHWA-2017-0025-0200; Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), FHWA-2017-0025-201; Members of Congress (51), FHWA-2017-0025-0206-1; Colorado DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0208; CrossTown Connect TMA, FHWA-2017-0025-222; Association for Commuter Transportation, FHWA-2017-0025-225; City of Portland, OR, FHWA-2017-0025-0234-1; Local Government Commission, FHWA-2017-0025-0236; Joint submission led by California Association of Councils of Governments (5), FHWA-2017-0025-0242-1; Brookings Institution, FHWA-2017-0025-0248-3 and -4.

    34 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2 and -3; DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125-4; Texas DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0127-3; Joint submission led by American Highway Users Alliance (38), FHWA-2017-0025-0196-2 and -3; AGC, FHWA-2017-0025-0213-4 and -5.

    Commenters who stated that the measure should be repealed cited three primary reasons. First, these commenters noted that State DOTs and MPOs have little to no ability to reduce CO2 emissions through highway programs because it has not been demonstrated that States or MPOs have the ability to effect meaningful change in CO2 emissions through stewardship of the highway program. They commented that the GHG rule effectively looks for GHG reductions from a largely preservation-oriented highway program where they are not available to be had. According to the commenters, the rule would place pressure on a State to change its mix of highway projects for speculative benefits.

    Second, two submissions 35 noted that rural States may face particular challenges and program distortions under the rule. Five State DOTs jointly asserted that many of the strategies for how a State might influence CO2 emission that were included in the PM3 Final Rule are not well-suited to rural settings, where residents drive relatively long distances, often in heavy-duty vehicles. The Wyoming DOT 36 noted that rural States are focused on system preservation and that the GHG measure could pressure the agency to change its mix of projects away from preservation. According to the Wyoming DOT, failure to preserve pavement could increase CO2 emissions through reduced speeds due to rough surfaces. In a joint comment, two Alaska State agencies 37 said on-road vehicle CO2 emissions represent a much smaller share of total CO2 emissions in Alaska than in other States or in the United States as a whole.

    35 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2; DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125-4.

    36 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2.

    37 Alaska DOT and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, FHWA-2017-0025-0135-3.

    Third, another commenter 38 asserted that GHG tailpipe emissions are already subject to regulation through the fuel economy standards set by DOT and EPA, and another 39 stated that other Federal agencies, like EPA, already have set new nationwide standards and guidelines for CO2 emission reductions that are focused on the most significant sources.

    38 Joint submission led by American Highway Users Alliance (38), FHWA-2017-0025-0196-2 and -3.

    39 AGC, FHWA-2017-0025-0213-4 and -5.

    The commenters who stated that the GHG measure should be retained because it does provide utility 40 cited the following reasons: Several State DOTs 41 commented that the measure would be highly useful in understanding the trend of transportation emissions at the State level, evaluating national performance, and pursuing GHG reduction work. In a joint comment, 51 Members of Congress 42 said that a GHG performance measure is critical for State DOTs and MPOs to determine the type of investments needed to accommodate future increases in passenger and freight travel. The lawmakers added that one of the national goals established in MAP-21 was environmental sustainability and that repealing the GHG measure would inhibit the ability of decisionmakers to make progress toward that national goal. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 43 stated that the GHG measure provides some assurance that State and local transportation agencies are tracking the full benefits of active transportation and trail networks. Similarly, the Association for Commuter Transportation 44 said that repealing the GHG measure would cause a policy bias that would thwart efforts to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and create an efficient transportation system. Finally, four commenters 45 asserted that tracking carbon emissions would be a valuable way to evaluate the spending decisions made by transportation agencies.

    40 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132; Rails to Trails Conservancy, FHWA-2017-0025-0139-2; Metropolitan Council, FHWA-2017-140-1; Metropolitan Area Planning Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0150; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152; Oregon Metro, FHWA-2017-0025-0160; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-0158; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162; Mass comment campaign led by U.S. PIRG (28), FHWA-2017-0025-0172-2; Joint submission led by NRDC (12), FHWA-2017-0025-0190-7, -8, and -9; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195-6; Mass comment campaign sponsored by the Transportation for America (87), FHWA-2017-0025-0197; Transportation for America, FHWA-2017-0025-0200; CMAP, FHWA-2017-0025-201; Members of Congress (51), FHWA-2017-0025-0206-1; Colorado DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0208; CrossTown Connect TMA, FHWA-2017-0025-222; Association for Commuter Transportation, FHWA-2017-0025-225; City of Portland, OR, FHWA-2017-0025-0234-1; Local Government Commission, FHWA-2017-0025-0236; Joint submission led by California Association of Councils of Governments (5), FHWA-2017-0025-0242-1; Brookings Institution, FHWA-2017-0025-0248-3 and -4.

    41 E.g., Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152; Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132-3.

    42 Members of Congress (51), FHWA-2017-0025-0206-1.

    43 Rails to Trails Conservancy, FHWA-2017-0025-0139-1.

    44 Association for Commuter Transportation, FHWA-2017-0025-225.

    45 Metropolitan Area Planning Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0150; Stratford MPO, FHWA-2017-0025-0151; mass comment campaign sponsored by Transportation for America (87), FHWA-2017-0025-0197; mass comment campaign sponsored by Environmental Law & Policy Center (360), FHWA-2017-0025-0255.

    Burden of the GHG Measure

    FHWA received 22 comments related to the resource burdens associated with the GHG measure. Twelve of the comments stated that the costs and resource burdens would be minimal, while ten of the comments noted that measure would be burdensome.

    Seven State DOTs 46 and a joint letter by 38 associations 47 commented that the GHG performance measure would require State DOTs to dedicate additional resources and effort to regulatory compliance, instead of focusing on the core mission of highway projects and programs. Similarly, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),48 the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO),49 and the Georgia DOT 50 commented that any new national-level measures added will require further implementation and evaluation, which may translate to less adequate resources and data to ensure effective implementation of existing measures. The AASHTO and the Western Connecticut Council of Governments 51 said that State DOTs, MPOs, and DOT need both time and experience successfully to implement the other 17 new national-level measures that are currently required by regulations (in addition to those required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Transit Administration) before more measures are added. The Georgia DOT 52 commented that, unlike many of the performance measures in effect, some performance measures such as the GHG measure are not appropriate to be implemented from a national or one-size-fits-all approach. The Missouri DOT 53 said that transportation agencies should have the flexibility to develop performance measures other than those explicitly required by Federal statute without having to report them to FHWA. The Wyoming DOT specifically referenced the additional resources necessary to implement the GHG measure, which it said would take away staff resources and funds from achieving its core mission of highway projects and programs.

    46 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2; DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125; Alaska, FHWA-2017-0025-0135; Tennessee DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0258.

    47 Joint submission led by American Highway Users Alliance (38), FHWA-2017-0025-0196.

    48 AASHTO, FHWA-2017-0025-0138.

    49 AMPO, FHWA-2017-0025-0179.

    50 Georgia DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0156.

    51 AASHTO, FHWA-2017-0025-0138; Western Connecticut Council of Governments, FHWA-2017-0025-0240-1.

    52 Georgia DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0156.

    53 Missouri DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0131.

    Many other commenters, including six State DOTs,54 four planning agencies,55 one local government,56 and a joint letter by six State Attorneys General,57 said that calculating the GHG measure would place a minimal burden on the States, particularly in comparison to the other performance measures already in place.58 The commenters noted that the data needed to calculate the measure is already collected and reported by States. The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) 59 said that it took only 2 hours for one of its employees to collect the data, perform the analysis, and complete a mock report that met FHWA requirements. MnDOT added that it expects the annual staff burden for analysis and reporting to be less than 2 hours per year, or approximately $530 over 9 years. The City of New York 60 commented that if the GHG measure were repealed, then the cost and time involved in doing transportation sector GHG analysis will be higher due to the lack of standardization of assumptions and reporting methods. The city asserted that, without the GHG measure, it will be harder to ensure consistency across the MPOs in the NJ-NY-CT metropolitan region, and to compare transportation CO2 emissions and mitigation strategies against those of other States and regions.

    54 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132; Minnesota DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0149; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152; Vermont DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0155; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162; Colorado DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0208.

    55 DVRPC, FHWA-2017-0025-0145; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-158-5; Joint submission led by California Association of Councils of Government (5), FHWA-2017-0025-0242; TRANSCOM, FHWA-2017-0025-0253.

    56 City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195.

    57 Attorneys General of CA, MD, OR, VT, WA, and MA, FHWA-2017-002-0199.

    58See Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132; Minnesota DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0149; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152; Vermont DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0155; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162; Colorado DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0208; DVRPC, FHWA-2017-0025-0145; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-158-5; Joint submission led by California Association of Councils of Government (5), FHWA-2017-0025-0242; TRANSCOM, FHWA-2017-0025-0253; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195; Attorneys General of CA, MD, OR, VT, WA, and MA, FHWA-2017-002-0199.

    59 Minnesota DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0149.

    60 City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195.

    FHWA Response

    In considering the potential burden of the GHG measure, many States and planning agencies have accurately noted that establishing the target and calculating the measure would not require many additional resources, though the burden would vary by State and MPO depending on previous experience with the topic and the data. However, FHWA is concerned that even a marginal increase in effort generated by the GHG measure could cause some States and MPOs to reduce resources devoted to the other national performance measures.

    While the measure could help foster a structure for analyzing potential reductions at the State or local level, FHWA finds persuasive other commenters' concern that such a situation has adverse impacts. Those commenters 61 stated the GHG measure puts pressure on them to reduce emissions, and that reducing emissions would be difficult, particularly in rural States. Others noted that there are already policies in effect to reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions. However, FHWA notes that the GHG measure did not force transportation entities to reduce CO2 emissions; the States and local agencies themselves set GHG targets at their discretion. Rather, the GHG measure required States to go through the process of setting targets, allowing States at their discretion to set targets that either increase, decrease, or maintain the status quo over time.

    61 Wyoming DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0124-2; DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125-4.

    FHWA agrees that more rural or preservation-focused States that are not building as much new infrastructure may have fewer options for reducing emissions. There are some available options, such as transportation system management and fuel switching strategies, for example, that may be appropriate for States to use voluntarily.62 These strategies do not rely on VMT reductions that arguably may be difficult to achieve in rural areas. Also, while valuable, the fuel economy standards raised by commenters represent only one method for addressing CO2 emissions from on-road vehicles.

    62 See FHWA's Reference Sourcebook for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation Sources (2012).

    C. Duplication of Efforts at Federal, State, or Local Levels

    Seven agencies submitted comments related to whether repealing the measure would be appropriate to eliminate duplication of efforts, or to eliminate duplicative regulations and streamline the regulatory processes. Several State DOTs and MPOs 63 said that they are already tracking CO2 emissions, either voluntarily or to comply with State requirements. Seven commenters 64 stated that the measure should be retained, and four 65 said it should be repealed.

    63 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132-10; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-0158-6; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195-7; City of Portland, OR, FHWA-2017-0025-0234-3; NOACA, FHWA-2017-0025-0243-2.

    64 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132-6 and -10; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152; Joint submission led by California Association of Councils of Governments (5), FHWA-2017-0025-0242; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-0158; City of New York, FHWA-2017-0025-0195; City of Portland, OR, FHWA-2017-0025-0234-3; NOACA, FHWA-2017-0025-0243.

    65 Arkansas DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0054, Alaska DOT and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, FHWA-2017-0025-0135; AASHTO, FHWA-2017-0025-0138; Western Connecticut Council of Governments, FHWA-2017-0025-0240.

    One State DOT said that the GHG performance measure should be repealed because it is duplicative of other government efforts to estimate and regulate air emissions.66 Another commenter said that the transportation conformity process already governs air emissions and could be extended to include GHGs, possibly at lower cost.67 One commenter 68 stated that the EPA MOVES14 vehicle emissions model already has the capability of estimating vehicle CO2 emissions. One State DOT and one State environmental agency 69 jointly noted that the EPA GHG Emissions Inventory relies on information already provided by State DOTs to FHWA on a monthly basis. The commenters added that the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) also tracks fuel production and use by the transportation sector.

    66 Alaska DOT and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, FHWA-2017-0025-0135-1.

    67 Western Connecticut Council of Governments, FHWA-2017-0025-0240-2.

    68 AMPO, FHWA-2017-0025-0179-2.

    69 Alaska DOT and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, FHWA-2017-0025-0135-1 and -2.

    One State DOT,70 referencing comments submitted previously during the prior rulemaking by nine additional State DOTs, noted FHWA incorporated many of their suggestions in the January 2017 PM3 Final Rule, and as a result the rule is not duplicative. Two State DOTs and one MPO noted that the rule is aligned with their existing goals and would therefore not be duplicative.71

    70 Minnesota DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0148.

    71 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132-6; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152-10; Joint submission led by California Association of Councils of Governments (5), FHWA-2017-0025-0242-2.

    FHWA Response

    Other Federal agencies, such as EPA and DOE, have undertaken regulatory and other efforts to address CO2 emissions. Those efforts include production by DOE of annual State-by-State CO2 emissions information for the transportation sector. FHWA has reviewed the comments in this area and the efforts of other agencies, and concludes that the rule is unnecessarily duplicative of efforts at the Federal level to produce information on CO2 emissions.

    FHWA fully considered the comments relating to duplication, as well as the potential impacts on the national performance management program if FHWA repeals the GHG performance measure. As noted in the PM3 Final Rule,72 the existence of other governmental efforts in this area does not necessarily bar FHWA from using CO2 emissions as a performance measure; however, FHWA must consider whether the existence of duplication in this area might indicate that this is not the best use of Federal regulation. After further consideration, FHWA believes the duplication issue is meaningful to FHWA's reconsideration of the GHG performance measure at this time. FHWA believes the repeal of the GHG performance measure will reduce duplication at the Federal level, and reduce the potential for the confusion that could arise when multiple Federal entities impose different requirements for categorizing and measuring CO2 emissions. FHWA acknowledges that multi-jurisdictional regulation of the same matter does occur, but FHWA believes that it ought to be avoided where avoidance is reasonably possible and not inconsistent with statutory requirements.

    72 Final Rule on “National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program”: Docket No. FHWA-2013-0054, RIN 2125-AF54, Federal Register—Vol. 82, No. 11, Pg. 5996—January 18, 2017: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00681.pdf.

    States and MPOs are free to continue to adopt their own measures for CO2 emissions, including measures that rely on the same methodology and data as the FHWA GHG performance measure. They also are free to produce CO2 emissions information specific to highway systems and individual facilities. The CO2 emissions data used in the FHWA CO2 measure is publicly available, and that availability is not impacted by the repeal of this measure.

    D. Appropriateness of the Measure Methodology

    Five commenters addressed the level of precision associated with the original rule, and whether the measure impedes the ability of State DOTs and MPOs to use the measure and associated targets in evaluating system performance and making investment decisions. All five 73 agencies stated the measure is accurate enough so as to provide sufficient trend information to determine whether the rule is effective at reducing emissions and should be retained. These commenters found the GHG measure to be simple and replicable nationwide, that it provides sufficiently accurate trend information to make significant progress determinations, and that it would provide a useful reference point and inform decision-making over time.

    73 Washington State DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0132-4; Metropolitan Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0140-2; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152-5 and -7; National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, FHWA-2017-0025-0158-3; City of Portland, OR, FHWA-2017-0025-0234-2.

    FHWA Response

    FHWA has decided to repeal the GHG measure for reasons unrelated to the soundness of the measure's methodology. For those commenters who find that the methodology for the GHG measure is well-suited for use with a GHG performance measure, FHWA notes that State DOTs and MPOs may independently choose to adopt this methodology outside of the national performance management program.

    E. Alternatives to Current GHG Performance Measure

    FHWA considered alternatives to the repeal of the GHG measure, including alternatives suggested by commenters. This included consideration of whether FHWA should retain the measure as adopted in the PM3 Final Rule, or adopt a modified version of the GHG measure within the framework of the national performance management program.

    The AMPO 74 stated that if CO2 emissions must be measured, EPA is the Federal agency that should administer such a requirement, because EPA already requires emissions measures for criteria pollutants as part of the transportation-conformity process. The commenter indicated the EPA MOVES14 vehicle emissions model already has the capability of estimating vehicle CO2 emissions; however, those estimates are rather crude and based on assumed fuel economy and the amount of fuel consumed. Thus, a State-by-State estimate of CO2 emissions could just as easily be determined by EPA or FHWA based on fuel sales and vehicle fuel economy. For this reason, AMPO stated, there is no need to burden the States and MPOs to report these estimates.

    74 AMPO, FHWA-2017-0025-0179-2.

    The CMAP 75 suggested establishing a measure that addresses all on-road mobile sources and reporting the measure both in absolute and normalized terms using population. CMAP stated that the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) or a simplified speed-emissions rate lookup table based on MOVES could be used to help address the concerns that the original measure calculation (using VMT and fuel sales to calculate CO2 emissions) is not sophisticated enough to capture some of the nuances of CO2 emissions.

    75 CMAP, FHWA-2017-0025-0201.

    The Western Connecticut Council of Governments 76 recommended FHWA work with EPA to expand the existing transportation-conformity process that EPA oversees, and in which State DOTs and MPOs participate, to include CO2 emissions. They thought there was the potential for the benefit-cost ratio of such an extension to be more favorable than the creation of a GHG performance measure under Title 23. They also discussed the benefits of voluntary measures, such as allowing States' focus to remain on requirements relating to other performance measures while also allowing for policy experimentation, innovation, and peer learning.

    76 Western Connecticut Council of Governments, FHWA-2017-0025-0240-1.

    In addition to alternatives submitted by commenters, FHWA considered directly publishing CO2 emissions trend information as an alternative means to achieve the outcomes FHWA expected from the GHG measure. Under this alternative, FHWA would calculate trend information using much the same methodology as the GHG measure, though the trend information would not involve any performance targets. This alternative would not use a “measure and target” framework, which is required in the performance management program under section 150. For that reason, adopting this alternative would result in the repeal of the GHG measure.

    FHWA Response

    None of the alternatives provide a way to modify the GHG measure while retaining it as part of the national performance management program at this time. The alternative proposed by AMPO would have a Federal agency calculate the measure for each State DOT and MPO. FHWA agrees that a single Federal or private entity could calculate the measure based on fuel sales. However, the State DOTs and MPOs still would have to carry out the remaining activities required for the national performance management program. These include setting their CO2 emissions targets (a local, not a Federal, decision), reporting to FHWA on progress toward their targets, and determining a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if they failed to make significant progress during a performance period.77 Therefore, having FHWA or EPA calculate the measure would not substantially reduce the overall burden on States or MPOs.

    77See 23 CFR 490.105, 490.107, 490.109.

    In addition, with respect to CMAP's comments on using MOVES to calculate the measure, FHWA considered this suggestion during the PM3 rulemaking. FHWA elected to use fuel sales to calculate the measure, instead of MOVES, because such a requirement to use MOVES would create an extra burden for State DOTs and MPOs that do not currently use that model. One of the reasons FHWA is repealing the GHG measure through this rulemaking is to reduce the burdens on State DOTs and MPOs. Switching to the use of MOVES would likely increase, not decrease, the burdens imposed on State DOTs and MPOs by the GHG measure.

    FHWA interprets the Western Connecticut Council of Governments' comment as suggesting it might be more beneficial if the transportation air quality conformity program, rather than the national performance management program, were used to address CO2 emissions in transportation. FHWA believes this comment supports its decision to remove the GHG measure from the national performance management program. EPA has used the conformity program to mandate changes in emissions levels of pollutants subject to conformity. FHWA defers to EPA on whether adding CO2 emissions to the conformity program is an appropriate action.

    FHWA acknowledges the Western Connecticut Council of Governments' suggestion that the voluntary use of a GHG performance measures might prove useful, but FHWA does not believe a voluntary measure can be included in the national performance management program. Making the GHG measure voluntary would require FHWA to establish a new category for voluntary measures, create a set of procedures for voluntary measures, and exempt voluntary measures from certain parts of the existing performance management regulations in 23 CFR part 490. FHWA is also concerned that an attempt to accommodate voluntary performance measures in the national performance management program could cause confusion among stakeholders, including State DOTs, MPOs, and the public. Such confusion would be harmful to the national performance management program. FHWA encourages State DOTs and MPOs to continue to establish and use performance measures independent of the national performance management program, as many have done for a long time.

    In addition to alternatives suggested by commenters, FHWA considered the alternative of having FHWA provide CO2 emissions information directly. Under this alternative, FHWA would directly calculate the State-by-State trends and publish the information, which would eliminate requirements for State DOTs and MPOs to implement the GHG measure. This alternative could have the some of the influencing effects FHWA described in the PM3 Final Rule, although this alternative has some potential to result in lower levels of engagement by State DOTs and MPOs than alternatives that retain a GHG measure. This alternative would require FHWA to provide some additional administrative resources, or reallocate existing resources that FHWA currently uses for other work. Like State DOTs, FHWA operates in a resource-constrained environment. FHWA declines to adopt this alternative at this time.

    F. Other Comments 1. Legal Authority for the GHG Measure

    Roughly one in ten commenters submitted opinions on FHWA's legal authority to establish this rule. Eleven commenters 78 stated that FHWA does have the authority; whereas, twelve commenters 79 had the opposite opinion. A number of commenters suggested that FHWA has authority to regulate, arguing that a GHG measure is authorized by 23 U.S.C. 150 and other Title 23 statutes, reiterating the same reasons articulated in the PM3 rulemaking.80 One commenter 81 stated the EPA's endangerment finding 82 for CO2 emissions provides FHWA with legal authority to regulate CO2 emissions.

    78 Metropolitan Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0140-1; Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals, FHWA-2017-0025-141-1; Minnesota DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0149-2; Metropolitan Area Planning Council, FHWA-2017-0025-0150; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162-7 and -8; Straw, FHWA-2017-0025-0173; Joint submission led by NRDC (12), FHWA-2017-0025-190-1 and -2; mass comment campaign led by U.S. PIRG (mayors) (66), FHWA-2017-0025-0192; Attorneys General of CA, MD, OR, VT, WA, and MA, FHWA-2017-0025-0199-3; Transportation for America, FHWA-2017-0025-0200-1 and -3; Colorado DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0208-3.

    79 Arkansas DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0054; Michigan DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0070; DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125; Texas DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0127; Michigan DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0134; Nebraska DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0146; Montana DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0153; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, FHWA-2017-0025-0159-2; Joint submission led by American Highway Users Alliance (38), FHWA-2017-0025-0196-3; AGC, FHWA-2017-0025-0213-1; ARTBA, FHWA-2017-0025-0246-1; Tennessee DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0258.

    80 “National Performance Management Measures: Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (RIN 2125-AF54): https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00681.pdf.

    81 Isbell, FHWA-2017-0025-0169.

    82https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-12-15/pdf/E9-29537.pdf.

    Most of the comments received in this rulemaking stating that FHWA does not have legal authority to adopt a GHG measure recited the same reasons as comments received during the PM3 rulemaking.83 These comments pointed to the language in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(C) that limits FHWA authority to adopting performance measures described in that statute. Given that GHG is not expressly mentioned anywhere in the statute, the commenters viewed a GHG measure as prohibited by 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(2)(C). Some commenters noted that while 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(5) calls for an emissions measure, that provision is tied to the CMAQ program. Because CO2 emissions are not a criteria pollutant targeted by the CMAQ Program, the commenters concluded 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(5) could not provide a legal basis for a GHG measure.84

    83 “National Performance Management Measures: Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (RIN 2125-AF54): https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-18/pdf/2017-00681.pdf.

    84 DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125-3; Texas DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0127-2; Joint submission led by American Highway Users Alliance (38), FHWA-2017-0025-0196-3; ARTBA, FHWA-2017-0025-0246-3.

    Two joint submissions 85 stated that principles of statutory construction barred FHWA from adopting a GHG performance measure. The commenters pointed out that Congress expressly addressed emissions in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(5). Applying the statutory construction principle that “the specific governs the general,” the commenters concluded that Congress expressly stated how to address emissions in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(5), and that nothing in the remainder of 23 U.S.C. 150(c) provided other authority to regulate emissions.

    85 DOTs of ID, MT, ND, SD, and WY, FHWA-2017-0025-0125-3; Joint submission led by American Highway Users Alliance (38), FHWA-2017-0025-0196-3.

    Finally, the Michigan DOT 86 pointed out that GHGs are not criteria air pollutants targeted by CMAQ funding and expressed concern about the precedent that would be set if FHWA were to establish a performance measure for which Congress did not designate any funding.

    86 Michigan DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0070-1.

    FHWA Response

    FHWA appreciates the many comments received in this rulemaking on the question of FHWA's legal authority. Please see our resolution of the legal authority issue above in Section IV.B.1.

    2. Legal Duty To Adopt a GHG Measure

    Two submissions 87 stated that FHWA has a duty to adopt a GHG measure. One 88 described FHWA's obligation to use “unenumerated performance criteria” when such measures are “appropriate or necessary to further Congress's purposes.” That commenter also stated that emissions that cause climate change would be a critical aspect of NHS performance in the future, and that it would be “contrary to the statute, and to the record, for the FHWA to decline to exercise its discretion to include” a GHG measure.

    87 Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162-7; Attorneys General of CA, MD, OR, VT, WA, and MA, FHWA-2017-0025-0199-5.

    88 Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162-7.

    FHWA Response

    FHWA does not believe that a GHG measure is mandated by 23 U.S.C. 150(c). As noted by commenters in this rulemaking, there is no explicit reference to a GHG measure in 23 U.S.C. 150(c). Thus, adoption of a GHG measure rested entirely on FHWA's discretion to interpret 23 U.S.C. 150(c). As discussed in the legal authority section in Section IV.B.1, FHWA has concluded, upon reconsideration, that the better reading of the statute does not encompass the GHG measure.

    3. Administrative Procedure Act Concerns

    We received a joint comment from State Attorneys General 89 arguing that repealing the GHG measure would be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The comment claimed that FHWA's NPRM had not provided sufficient justification to repeal the measure, and FHWA could not provide the reasoned analysis needed to support a repeal of the GHG measure. The comment also stated that FHWA must consider alternative solutions to address alleged problems with the GHG measure, rather than repealing it. Two other commenters 90 noted similar APA concerns, with one 91 stating that a repeal would be inconsistent with “relevant executive orders,” based on a comparison of the cost analysis in the PM3 Final Rule and the cost analysis in the NPRM for this rulemaking.

    89 Attorneys General of CA, MD, OR, VT, WA, and MA, FHWA-2017-0025-0199-4.

    90 Straw, FHWA-2017-0025-0173; Joint submission led by NRDC (12), FHWA-2017-0025-0190-1 and -3.

    91 Joint submission led by NRDC (12), FHWA-2017-0025-0190-1 and -3.

    FHWA Response

    FHWA has examined the relevant data and other information, and carefully considered the comments received, as outlined in this document. FHWA has examined the facts and has provided a reasoned explanation for the repeal of the GHG measure consistent with APA requirements, as detailed throughout this preamble.

    4. Rulemaking Concerns

    FHWA received comments 92 concerning the comment period, requesting an extension or otherwise stating the 30-day comment period was inadequate. Four commenters 93 stated that FHWA should issue a new, full NPRM to effectuate the repeal to better define the proposed regulatory action, and allow for broad comment on the specifics of a proposed policy.

    92 Joint submission led by Clean Air Carolina (4), FHWA-2017-0025-0027; City of New York Law Department, FHWA-2017-0025-0060; Joint submission led by Clean Air Carolina (4), FHWA-2017-0025-0027; City of New York Law Department, FHWA-2017-0025-0060.

    93 Schroeckenthale, FHWA-2017-0025-0030; Oregon DOT, FHWA-2017-0025-0152-1; Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162-12; Denver Regional Council of Governments, FHWA-2017-0025-0163.

    FHWA Response

    FHWA considered the comments stating FHWA should have provided a 90-day comment period for this rulemaking, questioning whether the proposed regulatory action and related matters were adequately described in the NPRM, and suggesting FHWA should have engaged in additional rulemaking to seek comments on certain topics not specified in the NPRM.

    While FHWA sometimes uses a 90-day comment period in its rulemaking proceedings, that length of time is not required. In this instance, FHWA received not only comments asking for a longer comment period, but also comments asking for a quick decision so States could have certainty about the national performance measures. FHWA did provide a short extension of the 2017 comment period, from November 6 to November 15. However, FHWA concluded the comment period represented a reasonable balance of the various concerns and declined to further extend the time for comment.

    FHWA reviewed the NPRM in response to the suggestions that the NPRM did not meet APA requirements for notice of the proposed regulatory action. FHWA concluded the NPRM provides adequate notice of the proposal. The NPRM describes the history of the GHG measure, some of the concerns identified by commenters in the PM3 rulemaking, the reasons FHWA was proposing a repeal, and a request for comments on specific questions and on whether FHWA should take an action other than repeal (i.e., retain or revise the GHG measure). The NPRM included the regulatory language needed for a repeal of the measure. Considered together, these elements provided more than adequate notice that FHWA was considering repeal of the GHG measure due to various concerns, including policy changes, reconsideration of the legal authority for the measure, implementation costs and other regulatory burdens, lack of precision in the measure, lack of utility of the measure, and duplication of requirements. FHWA received comments in this rulemaking on all of these topics. FHWA concluded no additional rulemaking proceeding is needed before FHWA makes a decision on the GHG measure.

    5. Environmental Reviews

    Caltrans and the CARB 94 jointly argued that, because repeal would result in increased CO2 emissions and exacerbation of climate change, FHWA may not repeal the GHG performance measure without considering the implications of such a repeal on “many affected resources and communities.” The commenters asserted that the required analytic considerations, include, but are not limited to, the following: A full environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); analysis and consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); review under Executive Order 13211; and review under Executive Order 12898.

    94 Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162.

    FHWA Response

    Repeal of the GHG measure does not require an EIS or the other reviews called for by the comment. The commenters incorrectly conclude that the repeal of the measure would “result in increased GHG emissions.” 95

    95 Caltrans and CARB, FHWA-2017-0025-0162.

    As a matter of law, the 23 U.S.C. 150 performance measures are part of a congressionally mandated performance management system intended to provide a means to the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the FAHP, and improving project decisionmaking through performance-based planning and programming. The planning statutes incorporate performance management into the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes.96 Those statutes call for use of the performance measures and targets adopted pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c) and (d) to assess performance and progress towards critical outcomes for the States and regions of the MPOs, not to regulate State and MPO activities. Performance management, together with asset management plans prepared pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 119, and other State plans, feed into the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning process that States DOTs and MPOs use to identify their investment priorities.97 The performance measures and resulting targets are planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction. The comprehensive, interrelated, planning-based nature of this system is evident in MAP-21, where Congress addressed metropolitan and statewide planning and performance management together in their own subtitle of the reauthorization legislation.98

    96 See 23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2) and 135(d)(2).

    97 See 23 CFR 450.206(c)(4)-(5) and 450.306(d)(2) and (4).

    98 See Map-21, Subtitle B, Sections 1201-1203.

    As previously described, the GHG measure relies on influencing the behavior of State DOTs and MPOs. It does not require any action by those entities to reduce CO2 emissions. The repeal of the GHG measure cannot be determined to cause increases in CO2 emissions because the GHG measure has no legal power to force any change in CO2 emission levels under 23 U.S.C. 150, and the GHG measure does not have a predictable effect on those emissions. State DOTs and MPOs were free to choose targets that reflect an increase, a decrease, or static levels of CO2 emissions. The GHG measure required limited actions from State DOTs and MPOs, and those actions are administrative in character.99 The measure, which did not set any regulatory limit or emissions target, relied on the potential that it may produce an “influencing” effect on third-party behavior.100 But acting to influence others is different from an action that imposes a requirement to meet an emissions limit, or otherwise commands State DOTs and MPOs to produce a specific outcome with respect to CO2 emissions. It is not possible to determine whether the behavior of third parties will change as a result of the retention, modification, or repeal of the GHG measure, or to what degree a change in third-party behavior will have any effect on CO2 emissions. None of the laws cited by the commenter require FHWA to engage in such speculation.

    99 State DOTs and MPOs must set CO2 emissions targets, which can be for declining emission levels, increasing emission levels, or unchanged emission levels, as compared to a 2017 baseline. State DOTs must use data from existing sources to calculate the CO2 emissions measure at various points in time, reporting the results to FHWA. If the State DOT does not meet its target, it must report to FHWA on actions the State DOT will take to reach its selected target.

    100 82 FR at 5975-76.

    The impacts of Title 23-funded projects and programs selected by State DOTs and MPOs through the metropolitan and statewide planning process are subject to NEPA and other reviews listed in the comment prior to the project's implementation. That is the correct point in the process for such reviews, as that is the time when potential impacts can be determined with reasonable accuracy. Thus, there is no basis now for the reviews that the commenters seek. Rather than “escaping” evaluation as commenters contend, these issues can be addressed at an appropriate time in connection with the particular projects or programs. Please see Section VI.G. of this document for FHWA's regulatory analysis conducted pursuant to NEPA.

    VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FHWA has determined that this action is a significant action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures. However, it is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will not be economically significant within the meaning of E.O. 12866 as discussed below. This action complies with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771 to improve regulation. This action is considered significant because of widespread public interest in the transformation of the FAHP to be performance-based, although it is not economically significant within the meaning of E.O. 12866.

    FHWA considers this final rule to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, resulting in $1.67 million in annualized cost savings at a 7 percent discount rate. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule are presented in the RIA, which may be accessed from the docket (docket number FHWA-2013-0054). The RIA evaluates the economic impact, in terms of costs and benefits, on Federal, State, and local governments, as well as private entities regulated under this action, as required by E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. However, the RIA is unable to quantify any changes from improved decisionmaking that would result in benefits if the GHG measure requirement were retained.

    Estimated Cost Savings of Repealing the GHG Measure

    To estimate cost savings of this final rule, FHWA assessed the level of effort that would have been needed to comply with each section under the PM3 rule with respect to the now-repealed GHG measure. These costs are expressed in labor hours and the labor categories for those needed to implement the GHG measure. Level of effort by labor category is monetized with loaded wage rates to estimate total costs.

    Table 2 displays the total cost savings of this final rule for the 9-year study period (2018-2026) and the corresponding annualized values.

    Table 2—Total Cost Savings of the Rule Cost components 9-Year total cost * 7% 3% Annualized cost 7% 3% Section 490.105-490.109—Reporting Requirements $9,090,263 $10,652,791 $1,395,232 $1,368,179 Establish and Adjust GHG Targets 6,368,958 7,392,818 977,549 949,488 Reporting on GHG Targets and Progress Toward Them 2,573,869 3,068,421 395,054 394,089 Develop and Report Plan to Achieve GHG Targets 147,435 191,552 22,629 24,602 Section 490.511—Calculation of System Performance Metrics 1,752,927 2,094,857 269,051 269,051 Calculate Annual Total Tailpipe CO2 Emissions 1,752,927 2,094,857 269,051 269,051 Section 490.513—Calculation of System Performance Measures 48,703 58,061 7,475 7,457 Calculate % Change in Tailpipe CO2 Emissions the NHS Compared to the Calendar Year 2017 Level 48,703 58,061 7,475 7,457 Total Cost of Final Rule 10,891,892 12,805,709 1,671,758 1,644,687 * Results presented in 2014 dollars for consistency with GHG Repeal NPRM RIA.

    The effects potentially caused by the national GHG performance measure established in the PM3 Final Rule were administrative activities (such as holding meetings and the use of energy to operate offices) that State DOTs and MPOs would undertake to establish targets, calculate their progress toward their selected targets, report to FHWA, and determine a plan of action to make progress toward their selected targets if they failed to make significant progress during a performance period.101 Those effects serve as the baseline in this analysis. It is foreseeable that the decision to repeal the GHG measure in this rulemaking will cause (1) State DOTs and MPOs that have not yet set a CO2 emissions target to terminate their 23 U.S.C. 150(d) target-setting activities for the GHG measure; and (2) State DOTs and MPOs that have selected a CO2 emissions target to terminate activities related to tracking their performance and progress towards a 23 U.S.C. 150(d) CO2 emissions target. The repeal also will relieve State DOTs and MPOs of all future obligations with respect to this national CO2 emissions measure, including the obligation to calculate and report on their progress and to identify an action plan if they do not make significant progress toward their CO2 emissions target. The effects will be to reduce or eliminate the administrative activities associated with implementing the GHG measure.

    101 23 CFR 490.109.

    This action complies with the principles of E.O. 13563. After evaluating the costs and benefits of the rule, FHWA believes that the cost savings from this rulemaking would exceed the forgone benefits. These changes are not anticipated to adversely affect, in any material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes will not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule addresses the obligation of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects. The rule affects two types of entities: State governments and MPOs. State governments do not meet the definition of a small entity under 5 U.S.C. 601, which have a population of less than 50,000.

    The MPOs are considered governmental jurisdictions, and to qualify as a small entity they would need to serve less than 50,000 people. The MPOs serve urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more. As discussed in the RIA, the rule is expected to impose costs on MPOs that serve populations exceeding 200,000. Therefore, the MPOs that incur economic impacts under this rule do not meet the definition of a small entity.

    We hereby certify that this regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FHWA has determined that this action does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $151 million or more in any 1 year (when adjusted for inflation) in 2012 dollars for either State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector. In addition, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The FAHP permits this type of flexibility.

    D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism Assessment)

    FHWA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    E. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FHWA has analyzed this action under the PRA and has determined that this rulemaking would reduce PRA burdens associated with this measure.

    G. National Environmental Policy Act

    FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and has determined that this action would not have any significant effect on the quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).102

    102 This rulemaking also qualifies for a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(1) (activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction).

    The nature and potential effects of the GHG measure are described in detail in Section V.F.5. of this document. With respect to this rulemaking, changes in CO2 emissions are not a direct or indirect effect of the repeal of the GHG measure because there is no reasonably close causal connection between the repeal and actions taken by the State DOTs and MPOs to change CO2 emissions levels. Any potential change in CO2 emissions levels associated with the NHS would be the result of independent actions taken (or not taken) by State DOTs and MPOs. These intervening State DOT and MPO actions are not reasonably foreseeable effects 103 of the GHG measure because the measure does not require those entities to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions, and the GHG measure does not prescribe any method for State DOTs and MPOs to take such steps. The absence of a sufficiently close causal connection, and reasonable foreseeability, also means that NEPA does not require FHWA to consider CO2 emissions effects as a cumulative impact.

    103 Courts have interpreted “reasonably foreseeable” as meaning that the likelihood that the effects will occur is high enough that a person of “ordinary prudence” would consider the effects when making decisions.

    FHWA's conclusion that the GHG measure would not be a legal cause of changes in CO2 emissions levels, and thus would not produce effects that NEPA requires FHWA to analyze in this rulemaking, is further supported by Clean Air Act regulations promulgated by the EPA. In 40 CFR 93.152, EPA adopted a “but for” approach, defining direct and indirect emissions caused by a Federal action as emissions that would not otherwise occur in the absence of Federal action. As described above, a decision to leave the GHG measure in effect would not result in the reduction of CO2 emissions. For the same reasons, the decision to repeal the measure does not result in an increase in CO2 emissions.

    Pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), this repeal qualifies as categorically excluded from preparation of an EIS or environmental assessment under NEPA. FHWA concluded that the repeal of the GHG measure will not involve reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts. The GHG measure imposed no limits or controls on CO2 emissions, had no legal power to force changes in CO2 emissions, and left target-setting entirely to the discretion of State DOTs and MPOs. The repeal of the GHG measure is not a legally relevant cause of any change, or lack of change, in CO2 emissions levels or the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts potentially related to those emissions. This is true regardless of the geographic impact area considered. With respect to other types of potential environmental impacts from the repeal of the GHG measure, they are minor and consistent with the type of impacts related to administrative activities, such as analyzing data and reporting on the results (e.g., use of energy to operate computers, telephones, and office space). Such activities fit squarely within the boundaries of 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

    In making the determination that the repeal of the GHG measure qualifies for a categorical exclusion, FHWA considered whether the proposed regulatory action involves unusual circumstances. 23 CFR 771.117(b). Given FHWA's determination that the GHG measure is not reasonably causally connected to CO2 emissions levels, the analysis of unusual circumstances in this instance focuses on whether there are unusual circumstances relating to other types of potential environmental effects. FHWA found none of the environmental impacts from implementing, not implementing, or ceasing current implementation of the GHG measure rose to the level of significance under NEPA (23 CFR 771.117(b)(1)). FHWA found no substantial controversy exists over the size, nature, or effect of potential environmental impacts from the States DOTs and MPOs not carrying out the administrative activities associated with CO2 emissions target-setting or reporting on their performance with regard to those targets (23 CFR 771.117(b)(2)). There are no anticipated impacts from those administrative activities, or lack thereof, on properties protected by the NHPA or section 4(f) (23 U.S.C. 138) (23 CFR 771.117(b)(3)). Finally, FHWA found no inconsistencies with other laws, requirements, or determinations within the meaning of 23 CFR 771.117(b)(4).

    H. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630.

    I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FHWA certifies that this action would not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    K. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FHWA has analyzed this action under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The rulemaking addresses obligations of Federal funds to State DOTs for Federal-aid highway projects and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    L. Regulation Identifier Number

    A 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 number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 490

    Bridges, Highway safety, Highways and roads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2018 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85: Brandye L. Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FHWA amends 23 CFR part 490 as follows:

    PART 490—NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES 1. The authority citation for part 490 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 134, 135, 148(i), and 150; 49 CFR 1.85.

    Subpart A—General Information
    § 490.105 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 490.105 by removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(5) and (d)(1)(v).
    § 490.107 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 490.107 by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(H), (b)(2)(ii)(J), (b)(3)(ii)(I), and (c)(4). 4. Amend § 490.109 by removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(1)(v) and (f)(1)(v) and revising paragraph (d)(1)(vi) to read as follows:
    § 490.109 Assessing significant progress toward achieving the performance targets for the National Highway Performance Program and the National Highway Freight Program.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (vi) Baseline condition/performance data contained in HPMS and NBI of the year in which the Baseline Period Performance Report is due to FHWA that represents baseline conditions/performances for the performance period for the measures in § 490.105(c)(1) through (4).

    Subpart E—National Performance Management Measures to Assess Performance of the National Highway System
    § 490.503 [Amended]
    5. Amend § 490.503 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2).
    § 490.505 [Amended]
    6. Amend § 490.505 by removing the definition for “Greenhouse gas (GHG).”
    § 490.507 [Amended]
    7. Amend § 490.507 as follows: a. By removing the word “three” and adding in its place “two” in the introductory text; and b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b).
    § 490.509 [Amended]
    8. Amend § 490.509 by removing paragraphs (f)-(h).
    § 490.511 [Amended]
    9. Amend § 490.511 by removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (d), and (f).
    § 490.513 [Amended]
    10. Amend § 490.513 by removing paragraph (d).
    [FR Doc. 2018-11652 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0301] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Interstate 5 (I-5) Bridges across the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the movement of heavier than normal roadway traffic associated with the Independence Day fireworks show near the I-5 Bridges. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the event.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0301 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Oregon Department of Transportation, the bridge owner, requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges, mile 106.5, across the Columbia River between Vancouver, WA, and Portland, OR, to facilitate safe passage of participants in the Independence Day fireworks show event. The I-5 Bridges provides three designated navigation channels with vertical clearances ranging from 39 to 72 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while the lift spans are in the closed-to-navigation position. The I-5 Bridges operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869(a). The subject bridges need not open to marine vessels during the deviation period from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The bridges shall operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869(a) at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from large commercial ships, tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridges in the closed-to-navigation positions may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies, and this part of the Columbia River has no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11669 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0475] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neponset River, Boston, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Granite Avenue Bridge across Neponset River, mile 2.5, at Boston, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the McKeon Post Scholarship Road Race and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0475, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Jeffrey Stieb, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-8364, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a road race. The Granite Avenue Bridge, mile 2.5, across Neponset River, has a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.611.

    The temporary deviation will allow the Granite Avenue Bridge to remain closed from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 17, 2018. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway of the change in operating schedule through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11681 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0459] Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation; change of enforcement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks display taking place over Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA, on July 3, 2018. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this fireworks display event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location listed in the table to § 165.506(c)(21) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—COTP Zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, Waterways Management office; telephone 757-668-5580, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in the table to 33 CFR 165.506 at (c)(21) for the Shore Drive Fireworks display from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone within a 200 yard radius of the center located at approximate position latitude 36°54′58.2″ N, longitude 076°06′44.3″ W, located at Virginia Beach, VA. As specified in § 165.506(d), during the enforcement period, no vessel may enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. Because the fireworks display is happening on July 3 instead of July 4, 5, or 6 as published in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506, section (c), row 21. The enforcement period is also being changed for this year's event. This year the zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement published in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Richard J. Wester, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11644 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0503] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge, Cumberland River, Canton, KY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for a one-mile stretch of the navigable waters on of the Cumberland River, near the U.S. 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge-Henry R. Lawrence Memorial Bridge in Canton, KY. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the demolition of the bridge pier. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from May 31, 2018 through 6 a.m. on June 2, 2018 or until the bridge pier demolition operation and the cleanup of the main navigable channel is complete, whichever occurs first. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0503 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Joseph Stranc, Marine Safety Unit Paducah Waterways Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 270-442-1621 ext. 2124, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. On May 16, 2018, the Coast Guard was notified of the need for immediate bridge pier demolition operations. This safety zone must be established by May 30, 2018 and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the scheduled dates of the bridge pier demolition and compromise public safety.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to ensure safety of persons and vessels during the US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge pier demolition.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge pier demolition and clean-up operations beginning on May 30, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-half mile radius of the pier. The purpose of this rule is to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment while the bridge pier is being demolished.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 6 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through 6 a.m. on June 2, 2018 or until the bridge pier demolition operation and cleanup of the main navigable channel is complete, whichever occurs first. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Cumberland River between miles 62.6 and 63.6, and a safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement period. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment while the bridge pier is demolished. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or by telephone at 270-217-0959. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period of this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the rule. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone over a one-mile section of the Cumberland River for 3 days. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 3 days that will prohibit entry within one-mile stretch of the Cumberland River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L 60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0503 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0503 Safety Zone; US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge, Cumberland River, Canton, KY.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Cumberland River between miles 62.6 and 63.6 near the US 68/KY 80 Lake Barkley Bridge-Henry R. Lawrence Memorial Bridge in Canton, KY.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 6 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through 6 a.m. on June 2, 2018 or until the bridge pier demolition operation and cleanup of the main navigable channel is complete, whichever occurs first.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative. A safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement period.

    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or by telephone at 270-217-0959.

    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period of this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. M.B. Zamperini, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11661 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans CFR Correction In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, § 52.2020 to End, revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 17, in § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing the entries for Chapter 130—Standards for Products, Subchapter A—Portable Fuel Containers. [FR Doc. 2018-11702 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0484; FRL-9978-56—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State of Maryland's Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for municipal waste combustors (MWCs). The revision reflects amendments to Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.08.08, which update the MWC opacity compliance provisions. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)'s revised regulations provide that quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) requirements for continuous opacity monitors (COMs) are found in COMAR 26.11.31, rather than the now discontinued Technical Memorandum (TM 90-01). EPA is approving this revision to Maryland's CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0484. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (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 through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

    Emily Linn, (215) 814-5273, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On May 10, 2016, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision (MD Submittal #16-05) to its CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs. The revision contains Maryland's amendments to COMAR 26.11.08.08, “Requirements for an Existing Large MWC with a Capacity Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day.” Among other minor changes,1 these amendments update the references for opacity compliance which previously referenced a discontinued technical memorandum, TM 90-01, that addressed QA/QC procedures for COMs. COMAR 26.11.08.08 now refers to COMAR 26.11.31, which contains QA and QC procedures for COMs, similar to those previously found in the no longer effective TM 90-01.2 EPA is approving this revision to Maryland's 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs in accordance with the requirements of the CAA for sections 111(d) and 129 state plans.

    1 Other changes made by Maryland to COMAR 26.11.08.08 include (1) changing the “Emission Standards for a Large MWC” to read “10 percent opacity with COMS,” rather than “10 percent opacity with CEMS,” and (2) changing the “Performance and Compliance Test Requirements” to include the following statement: “. . . the Department may determine compliance and non-compliance with the visible emission limitations by performing EPA reference Method 9 observations based on a 6 minute block average” (formerly, it included the following statement: “In case of inconsistencies in data or conflicting data Method 9 results will determine compliance”).

    2 EPA previously approved Maryland's State Plan for large MWCs on April 8, 2008 (see 73 FR 18968). EPA also approved, as a revision to the Maryland state implementation plan, the regulatory requirements for QA/QC controls for COMs in COMAR 26.11.31 on November 7, 2016 (see 81 FR 78048).

    In the same state rulemaking action, MDE also revised the title of COMAR 26.11.08.07, from “Requirements for Certain Municipal Waste Combustors” to “Requirements for Municipal Waste Combustors with a Capacity of 35 tons or greater per day and less than or equal to 250 Tons Per Day,” to clarify that the state regulation applies to small MWCs. The text of 26.11.08.07 remains unchanged, and thus the requirements for MWCs remain unchanged. This clarification to the title of COMAR 26.11.08.07 is a minor administrative change and is not part of this action.

    On November 6, 2017 (82 FR 51380 and 82 FR 51350), EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule (DFR) for the State of Maryland approving revisions to its CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs. EPA received an adverse comment on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the effective date on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60872). In this rulemaking, EPA is responding to the comment submitted on the proposed approval of the State Plan revisions and is approving the revisions to Maryland's State Plan for MWCs.

    II. State Submittal and EPA Analysis

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's submittal to revise its State Plan for MWCs in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb. In this action, EPA is finalizing its determination that the submitted revision meets the above-cited requirements. EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart V (40 CFR 62.5110 and 62.5112), to reflect this approval.

    III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed approval of the revisions to the State of Maryland's CAA sections 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs. All other comments received were either supportive of or not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.

    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA should not be involved in matters of the state's choosing. Additionally, the commenter asserts that if the changes to the plan are largely administrative in nature, EPA should let the state go without making them spend resources to make that administrative change.

    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions. EPA did not specifically direct Maryland to make these amendments. Instead, Maryland submitted to EPA this revision to its State Plan for MWCs and requested that EPA amend the appropriate sections of 40 CFR part 62, subpart V, to reflect approval of this Plan revision. EPA is required to act on State Plan revisions submitted by states. In response to the commenter's assertion, while these changes are largely administrative in nature, they are needed to update Maryland's State Plan for COMs requirements. EPA is responding to MDE's request and finalizing the revisions to Maryland's State Plan for MWCs in this action, as they are consistent with CAA sections 111(d) and 129.

    IV. Final Action

    In this final action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart V, to reflect the receipt and approval of the revisions to Maryland's State Plan for MWCs in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 provides, in part, that Federal agencies shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) (March 7, 1996). Agencies are not required to use such standards if doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Public Law 104-113 (section 12(d)). EPA is not, in this action, using technical standards, as contemplated by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. Rather, EPA is reviewing and responding to Maryland's Section 111(d)/129 plan submission, and, in such case, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, in such context, EPA has no authority to disapprove a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use voluntary consensus standards, and it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission, to require use of such standards in place of a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act does not require, here, the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 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 approving Maryland's revisions to their 111(d) and 129 State Plan for MWCs may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

    PART 62—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart V—Maryland 2. Section 62.5110 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 62.5110 Identification of plan.

    (c) On May 10, 2016, Maryland submitted a revised State Plan and related COMAR 26.11.08.08 amendments.

    3. Section 62.5112 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 62.5112 Effective date.

    (c) The plan revision is effective July 30, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11746 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040; FRL-9977-62] Defensin Proteins Derived From Spinach in Citrus Plants; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 in or on citrus when used as plant-incorporated-protectants in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 88232-EUP-1. Southern Gardens Citrus Nursery, LLC, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on May 31, 2021.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective May 31, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before July 30, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 30, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0040, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Background

    In the Federal Register of May 6, 2015 (80 FR 25943) (FRL-9926-99), EPA previously established a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 174.535 for residues of spinach defensin proteins SoD2 and SoD7 in citrus. This exemption was established concurrently with an Experimental Use Permit (88232-EUP-1). Both the temporary tolerance exemption and EUP have expiration dates of April 18, 2018.

    In the Federal Register of March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8827) (FRL-9973-57), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 7G8630) by Southern Gardens Citrus Nursery, LLC, 1820 Country Road 833, Clewiston, FL 33440. The petition requested that the temporary tolerance exemption established in 40 CFR part 174.535 be amended and extended for residues of Spinach Defensin Proteins. Because the temporary tolerance exemption expired before we could complete this action, we are treating this as a petition to reestablish a temporary tolerance exemption. The petition referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Southern Gardens Citrus Nursery, LLC, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit III.C.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has reviewed the available toxicity and exposure data on spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Assessment of Defensin Proteins Derived from Spinach in Citrus Plants” dated April 27, 2018. This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

    Based upon available data, EPA concludes that spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8, do not show evidence of toxicity. Moreover, there is no significant similarity between spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 and known toxins and allergens. In addition, as discussed in the “Toxicological Profile” in the April 27, 2018 FFDCA Assessment document, the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 readily digest in simulated gastric fluids. Therefore, cumulative, chronic, and acute effects are unlikely. Furthermore, the source of the defensin proteins, spinach, has long been part of the human diet and there have been no findings that indicate toxicity or allergenicity of spinach proteins.

    Given the lack of toxicity or allergenicity of the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8, the Agency has not identified any toxicological endpoints for assessing risk. Due to the lack of any threshold effects, EPA has determined that the provision under FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) to retain a 10X safety factor for the protection of infants and children does not apply. Similarly, the lack of any toxic mode of action or toxic metabolites means that there is no available information concerning the cumulative effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity to be considered.

    Oral exposure to spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 may occur from ingestion of citrus products, such as fruit and juice. In addition, people have had a long history of consumption of spinach and will continue to be exposed to defensin proteins through consumption of spinach. Based on the lack of adverse effects and the rapid digestibility of the proteins, however, the Agency does not anticipate any risk from reasonably foreseeable levels of exposure. Since the plant-incorporated protectant is integrated into the plant's genome, the Agency has concluded, based upon previous science reviews, that the plant-incorporated protectant will not likely be found in ground or surface water and that residues in drinking water will be extremely low or non-existent. Non-occupational exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the plant-incorporated protectant is contained within plant cells, which essentially eliminates these exposure routes or reduces these exposure routes to negligible levels of exposure. In any event, there are no non-dietary non-occupational uses of SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 as they are only used in agricultural settings.

    Based on its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the spinach defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion because, as previously discussed, there is no indication of toxicity or allergenicity potential for the plant-incorporated protectant. Therefore, a temporary exemption is established for residues of spinach defensin SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 proteins in or on citrus when the proteins are used as plant-incorporated protectants in citrus plants. This exemption is being established concurrently with an extension to the Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 88232-EUP-1, and is therefore being established on a temporary basis. Both the EUP and temporary tolerance exemption will expire on May 31, 2021.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    C. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing (83 FR 8827). Neither of these anonymous comments were relevant to the proposed temporary tolerance exemption for spinach defensin proteins in citrus. One comment pertained to wind turbines and the other pertained to Chinese air quality.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    V. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

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

    Dated: May 22, 2018. Robert McNally, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 174—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Revise § 174.535 to read as follows:
    § 174.535 Spinach Defensin proteins; temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of the defensin proteins SoD2, SoD2*, SoD7, and SoD8 derived from spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) in or on citrus food commodities are temporarily exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in citrus plants in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit No. 88232-EUP-1. This temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires on May 31, 2021.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11750 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 100812345-2142-03] RIN 0648-XG253 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Yellowtail Snapper AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial sector for yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS projects that commercial landings of yellowtail snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the August 2017 through July 2018 fishing year by June 5, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for yellowtail snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ on June 5, 2018, and it will remain closed until August 1, 2018, the start of the August 2018 through July 2019 fishing year. This closure is necessary to protect the South Atlantic yellowtail snapper resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 5, 2018, until 12:01 a.m., local time, August 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes yellowtail snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The yellowtail snapper commercial ACL is 1,596,510 lb (724,165 kg), round weight, as specified in 50 CFR 622.193(n)(1)(i). The yellowtail snapper fishing year is August 1 through July 31, as specified in 50 CFR 622.7(f). Under 50 CFR 622.193(n)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the yellowtail snapper commercial sector when the commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has projected that the yellowtail snapper commercial sector will reach its ACL on June 5, 2018. Therefore, this temporary rule implements an AM to close the yellowtail snapper commercial sector in the South Atlantic EEZ, effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, June 5, 2018, until August 1, 2018, the start of the 2018-2019 fishing year.

    The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having yellowtail snapper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such species prior to June 5, 2018. During the commercial closure, all sale or purchase of yellowtail snapper from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The harvest or possession of yellowtail snapper in of from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(4) and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c). These bag and possession limits apply on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, regardless of whether such species were harvested in state or Federal waters.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic yellowtail snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(n)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the yellowtail snapper commercial sector constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the AM has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the yellowtail snapper resource, as the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11665 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 180220193-8488-02] RIN 0648-BH79 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Fishing Year 2018 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces management measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries. The implementing regulations for these fisheries require NMFS to publish recreational measures for the fishing year. The intent of these measures is to constrain recreational catch to established limits and prevent overfishing of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and other supporting documents for the recreational harvest measures are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The recreational harvest measures document is also accessible via the internet at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/2018-sf-bsb-rec-measures-EA.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9244.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Management Measures

    In this rule, NMFS specifies management measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries consistent with the recommendations of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). NMFS is establishing measures that would apply in the Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Additionally, these measures apply to all Federally permitted party/charter vessels with applicable summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass permits, regardless of where they fish, unless the state in which they land implements measures that are more restrictive. These measures are intended to achieve, but not exceed, the previously established 2018 recreational harvest limits established in a final rule published on December 22, 2017 (82 FR 60682).

    2018 Summer Flounder Recreational Management Measures

    NMFS is implementing conservation equivalency to manage the 2018 summer flounder recreational fishery, as proposed on April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15535). These measures are consistent with the recommendation of the Council and Commission. Additional information on the development of these measures is provided in the proposed rule and not repeated here.

    Conservation equivalency, as established by Framework Adjustment 2 (July 29, 2001; 66 FR 36208), allows each state to establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits, minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest limit established by the Commission from the coastwide recreational harvest limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management measures achieves the same level of conservation as Federal coastwide measures. Framework Adjustment 6 (July 26, 2006; 71 FR 42315) allowed states to form regions for conservation equivalency in order to minimize differences in regulations for anglers fishing in adjacent waters.

    The Commission is maintaining the provisions of Addendum XXVIII to its fishery management plan (FMP), which continues regional conservation equivalency for fishing year 2018. The Commission maintained regions that are consistent with those in place since 2016: (1) Massachusetts; (2) Rhode Island; (3) Connecticut and New York; (4) New Jersey; (5) Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; and (6) North Carolina. The Commission's Summer Flounder Management Board specified any adjustments to state measures in 2018 should result in no more than a 17-percent liberalization in coastwide harvest relative to the projected 2017 harvest of 3.23 million lb (1,465 mt), the harvest estimate available at the December 2017 meeting. The Board specified this maximum liberalization due to concerns about the status of the summer flounder stock, as well as concerns that harvest estimates for 2017 appeared to be anomalously low in terms of effort and landings. The cap on liberalization is to address concerns that overages may occur if catch and effort rates increase in 2018. More information on Addendum XXVIII is available from the Commission (www.asmfc.org).

    The Commission certified, by a letter dated April 26, 2018, that the Addendum XXVIII measures implemented by individual states and regions, when combined, are the conservation equivalent of coastwide measures that would be expected to result in the 2018 recreational harvest limit being achieved, but not exceeded.

    Based on the Commission's recommendation, we find that the 2018 recreational fishing measures required to be implemented in state waters are, collectively, the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in 50 CFR 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106(a). According to § 648.107(a)(1), vessels subject to the recreational fishing measures are not subject to Federal measures, and instead are subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the state in which they land. Section 648.107(a) is amended through this rule to recognize state-implemented measures as conservation equivalent of the coastwide recreational management measures for 2018.

    In addition, this action implements default coastwide measures (a 19-inch (48.3-cm) minimum size, 4-fish possession limit, and May 15 through September 15 open fishing season), that become effective January 1, 2019, when the 2018 conservation equivalency program expires. These measures will remain effective until replaced by the 2019 recreational management measures in the spring of next year.

    Scup Recreational Management Measures

    This rule maintains status quo scup measures for the 2018 fishery: A 9-inch (22.9-cm) minimum fish size, 50-fish per person possession limit, and year-round season.

    Black Sea Bass Recreational Management Measures

    NMFS is extending the Federal waters black sea bass recreational season by removing a closure that occurs from September 22 through October 21 and maintaining the current possession limit and minimum size. The following measures are implemented for the 2018 fishing year in Federal waters: A 15-fish possession limit, a 12.5-inch (31.75-cm) minimum size, and an open season from May 15-December 31.

    On May 4, 2018, the Commission submitted a letter stating that the recreational black sea bass fishing measures to be implemented by the states are projected to restrict the recreational coastwide landings to the 2018 recreational harvest limit of 3.66 million lb (1,661 mt). The Commission adjusted management measures contained in Addendum XXX following an appeal from the Northern Region (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York). The revised management program is designed to meet the needs of the Northern Region without impacting the remaining states, while still constraining harvest to the recreational harvest limit.

    Based on the Commission's letter, NMFS has determined that the measures that the states have committed to implement are sufficient to restrain catch appropriately. As a result, NMFS is able to implement the measures outlined in the proposed rule in Federal waters.

    Comments and Responses

    On April 11, 2018, NMFS published the proposed measures for the 2018 summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries for public notice and comments. NMFS received 46 comments. Only one of these comments was directly pertinent to the proposed Federal recreational measures. The commenter offered alternative measures to consider, suggesting a 5-fish possession limit for summer flounder, a 40-fish possession limit for scup with a 9-inch minimum size, and an unspecified possession limit higher than the current 15-fish possession limit for black sea bass. This commenter did not provide a rationale for why these measures would be appropriate or why the measures developed by the Council must be disapproved by NMFS. The remaining comments spoke directly to the Northern Region's black sea bass appeal, which was resolved by the Commission to meet the needs of the Northern Region without impacting the remaining states, addressed state-specific measures outside the scope of this action, offered general concerns over Marine Recreational Information Program estimates, or relayed general complaints over the management of black sea bass. No changes to the final rule are made based on these comments.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that these management measures are necessary for the conservation and management of the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries and that they are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of effectiveness period for this rule, to ensure that the final management measures are in place as soon as possible.

    This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. Preparation of the proposed rule was dependent on the submission of the EA in support of these recreational management measures that is developed by the Council. A complete document was received by NMFS in April 2018. Documentation in support of the Council's recommended management measures is required for NMFS to provide the public with information from the environmental and economic analyses, as required in rulemaking, and to evaluate the consistency of the Council's recommendation with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The proposed rule published on April 11, 2018, with a 15-day comment period ending April 26, 2018.

    The more restrictive Federal coastwide regulatory measures for summer flounder that were codified last year remain in effect until the 2018 recreational measures are made effective. Although the states' summer flounder fisheries are already open, additional delay in implementing the measures of this rule will increase confusion on what measures are in place in Federal waters. This would create inconsistencies between state and federal measures and increase the likelihood of illegal landings due to misunderstood regulations.

    Unlike actions that require an adjustment period to comply with new rules, charter/party operators will not have to purchase new equipment or otherwise expend time or money to comply with these management measures. Rather, complying with this final rule simply means adhering to the published management measures for each relevant species of fish while the charter/party operators are engaged in fishing activities.

    For these reasons, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay and to make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Two comments were received that mentioned perceived economic impacts of state waters measures, which is outside the scope of this action and results from decisions made by the Commission. A final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. Revise § 648.105 to read as follows:
    § 648.105 Summer flounder recreational fishing season.

    Unless otherwise specified pursuant to § 648.107, vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(3), and fishermen subject to the possession limit, may fish for summer flounder from May 15 through September 15. This time period may be adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.102.

    3. In § 648.107, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder fishery.

    (a) The Regional Administrator has determined that the recreational fishing measures proposed to be implemented by the states of Maine through North Carolina for 2018 are the conservation equivalent of the season, minimum size, and possession limit prescribed in §§ 648.104(b), 648.105, and 648.106. This determination is based on a recommendation from the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

    4. Revise § 648.146 to read as follows:
    § 648.146 Black sea bass recreational fishing season.

    Vessels that are not eligible for a moratorium permit under § 648.4(a)(7), and fishermen subject to the possession limit specified in § 648.145(a), may only possess black sea bass from May 15 through December 31, unless this time period is adjusted pursuant to the procedures in § 648.142.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11606 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 105 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-102951-16] RIN 1545-BN36 Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically) AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations amending the rules for determining whether information returns must be filed using magnetic media (electronically). The proposed regulations would require that all information returns, regardless of type, be taken into account to determine whether a person meets the 250-return threshold and, therefore, must file the information returns electronically. The proposed regulations also would require any person required to file information returns electronically to file corrected information returns electronically, regardless of the number of corrected information returns being filed. The proposed regulations will affect persons required to file information returns.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102951-16), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102951-16), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Alternatively, persons may submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-102951-16).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Michael Hara, (202) 317-6845; concerning the submission of comments and requests for a public hearing, Regina L. Johnson, (202) 317-5177 (not toll-free calls).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This document contains proposed amendments to the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 CFR part 301) under section 6011(e) relating to the filing of information returns on magnetic media. Section 6011(e) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations regarding the filing of returns on magnetic media.

    Section 6011(e)(2)(A) prohibits the Secretary from requiring persons to file returns on magnetic media unless the person is required to file at least 250 returns during the calendar year. Section 6011(e)(2)(B) provides that, in prescribing regulations, the Secretary shall consider the taxpayer's ability to comply at reasonable cost with the regulations' requirements. Section 301.6011-2(a)(1) provides that magnetic media includes any magnetic media permitted under the applicable regulations, revenue procedures, or publications, or, in the case of returns filed with the Social Security Administration, any magnetic media permitted under Social Security Administration publications, including electronic filing.

    Section 301.6011-2 provides rules for when information returns described in § 301.6011-2(b), such as Form 1042-S, “Foreign Person's U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding;” forms in the 1099 series; and Form W-2, “Wage and Tax Statement,” must be filed electronically. Under § 301.6011-2(c), a person is not required to file a type of information return covered by § 301.6011-2(b) electronically unless the person is required to file 250 or more such returns during the calendar year. Sections 301.6011-2(c)(1)(i) and (iii) and the Examples in § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iv) describe that the 250-return threshold applies separately to each type of information return and each type of corrected information return filed, and, therefore, the forms are not aggregated for purposes of determining whether the 250-return threshold is satisfied.

    Section 301.6011-2(c)(2) allows the Commissioner to waive the requirement to file electronically if the request for waiver demonstrates hardship and provides that the principal factor in determining hardship will be the extent, if any, to which the cost of electronic filing exceeds the cost of filing on other media.

    When the rules for determining the 250-return threshold, including the rule providing that each type of information return is counted separately and not aggregated, were originally published, electronic filing was in the early stages of development and was not as commonly used as it is today. The non-aggregation rule helped to reduce cost and ease burden on taxpayers, given the existing limits on technology and accessibility to such technology. Since then, significant advances in technology have made electronic filing more prevalent and accessible. As a result, electronic filing is less costly and most often easier than paper filing. In fact, most information returns are filed electronically. In tax year 2015, approximately 98 percent of information returns were filed electronically. In tax year 2016, the percentage of information returns filed electronically rose to 98.5 percent. Advances in tax return preparation software, as well as the prevalence of tax return preparers and third-party service providers who offer information return preparation and electronic filing, have also contributed to the increase in electronic filing.

    The concerns regarding taxpayer burden and cost associated with electronic filing have been significantly mitigated since the non-aggregation rule in § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(i) and (iii) of the regulations was first published. Therefore, determining the 250-return threshold on a form-by-form basis without aggregation is no longer necessary to relieve taxpayer burden and cost. Accordingly, these regulations simplify the rules for determining the 250-return threshold by requiring aggregation of all information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) for purposes of determining the 250-return threshold. In addition, these regulations provide that corrected information returns must be filed electronically if the original information returns were filed electronically. These rule changes will help facilitate efficient and effective tax administration.

    Explanation of Provisions

    These proposed regulations remove the non-aggregation rule in § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iii) that counts the number of information returns required to be filed on a form-by-form basis. The proposed regulations add a new paragraph (4) to § 301.6011-2(b) to provide that if during a calendar year a person is required to file a total of 250 or more information returns of any type covered by § 301.6011-2(b), the person is required to file those information returns electronically. For example, under these proposed regulations, if a person is required to file 200 Forms 1099-INT, “Interest Income,” and 200 Forms 1099-DIV, that person must file all Forms 1099-INT and Forms 1099-DIV electronically because that person is required to file, in the aggregate, at least 250 information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b). Corrected information returns are not taken into account in determining whether the 250-return threshold is met under proposed § 301.6011-2(b)(4) for purposes of determining whether information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) must be filed electronically. Examples in proposed § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iv) illustrate this rule.

    The proposed regulations also provide that corrected information returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) must be filed electronically if the information returns originally filed for the calendar year are required to be filed electronically. If fewer than 250 returns covered by § 301.6011-2(b) are required to be filed for the calendar year, the original returns for the calendar year, as well as the corrected returns for the calendar year, are not required to be filed electronically. See proposed § 301.6011-2(c)(1)(iv), Example 4.

    The proposed regulations also amend § 301.6721-1(a)(2)(ii) regarding the penalty for failure to file correct information returns to remove references to the prior rule for determining the number of returns on a form-by-form basis and the prior corrected return rule.

    The proposed regulations do not amend the existing regulations allowing persons who are required to file returns electronically to request a waiver of the electronic-filing requirement. See § 301.6011-2(c)(2). This waiver authority will be exercised so as not to unduly burden taxpayers lacking the necessary data-processing capabilities or access to return preparers and third-party service providers at a reasonable cost.

    Proposed Effective/Applicability Date

    These proposed regulations will be effective on the date of the publication of the Treasury Decision adopting these rules as final in the Federal Register. However, to give information-return filers sufficient time to comply with these regulations, these proposed regulations will not apply to information returns required to be filed before January 1, 2019. Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide that §§ 301.6011-2(b)(4) and 301.6721-1(a)(2)(ii), as amended, will be effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2018. Section 301.6011-2(b)(5), as amended, will be effective for corrected information returns filed after December 31, 2018.

    Special Analyses

    This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.

    When the Internal Revenue Service issues a proposed rulemaking imposing a collection of information requirement on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis,” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Section 605(b) of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This proposed rule directly affects information-return filers that file more than 250 returns of any type covered by § 301.6011-2(b), which includes a substantial number of small entities. However, the IRS has determined that the economic impact on small entities affected by the proposed rule would not be significant. Under sections 6011(e) and § 301.6011-2(c)(1), information-return filers already must file information returns electronically if during a calendar year a person is required to file a total of 250 or more information returns of any type covered by § 301.6011-2(b). The proposed rule merely amends the method of counting those 250 returns to determine if the 250-return threshold is met. Information filers may request a waiver of the electronic-filing requirement if they lack the necessary data-processing capabilities or access to return preparers and third-party service providers at a reasonable cost, and the IRS routinely grants meritorious hardship waiver requests. Accordingly, the burden on the limited number of small entities that are not currently filing electronically will be slight, and small entities that would experience a hardship because of this proposed rule may seek a waiver. The Commissioner of the IRS hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRS invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact on small information return filers. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any electronic and written comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, then notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is Michael Hara of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

    Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 301—PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 is amended by adding a sectional authority for 301.6721-1 to read as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 301.6721-1 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6011(e).

    Par. 2. Section 301.6011-2 is amended as follows: a. Paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) are added. b. Paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) are removed. c. Paragraph (g)(2) is revised.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 301.6011-2 Required use of magnetic media.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Aggregation of returns. For purposes of determining whether the number of returns a person is required to file meets the 250-return threshold under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, all types of returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section required to be filed during the calendar year are aggregated. Corrected returns are not taken into account in determining whether the 250-return threshold is met.

    (5) Corrected returns. Any person required to file returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section on magnetic media for a calendar year must file corrected returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for such calendar year on magnetic media.

    (6) Examples. The provisions of paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

    Example 1.

    For the 2018 calendar year, Company W is required to file 200 Forms 1099-INT, “Interest Income,” and 200 Forms 1099-DIV, “Dividends and Distributions,” for a total of 400 returns. Because Company W is required to file 250 or more returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the calendar year, Company W must file all Forms 1099-INT and Forms 1099-DIV electronically.

    Example 2.

    During the 2018 calendar year, Company X has 200 employees in Puerto Rico and 75 employees in American Samoa, for a total of 275 returns. Because Company X is required to file 250 or more returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the calendar year, Company X must file Forms 499R-2/W-2PR, “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Withholding Statement,” and Forms W-2AS, “American Samoa Wage and Tax Statement,” electronically.

    Example 3.

    For the 2018 calendar year, Company Y files 300 original Forms 1099-MISC, “Miscellaneous Income.” Later, Company Y files 70 corrected Forms 1099-MISC for the 2018 calendar year. Because Company Y is required to file 250 or more returns covered by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the calendar year, Company Y must file its original 300 Forms 1099-MISC, as well as its 70 corrected Forms 1099-MISC for the 2018 calendar year, electronically.

    (g) * * *

    (2) Paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1) and (2), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (d), (e), and (f) of this section are effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 1996. For information returns required to be filed after December 31, 1989, and before January 1, 1997, see section 6011(e) [26 U.S.C. 6011(e)]. Paragraph (b)(4) of this section is effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2018. Paragraph (b)(5) of this section is effective for corrected information returns filed after December 31, 2018.

    Par. 3. Section 301.6721-1 is amended as follows: a. By removing the fifth through seventh sentences in paragraph (a)(2)(ii). b. Adding paragraph (h).

    The revisions and addition reads as follows:

    § 301.6721-1 Failure to file correct information returns.

    (h) Effective dates. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section is effective for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2018.

    Kirsten Wielobob Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11749 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0330] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Appomattox River, Hopewell, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for a marine event on the navigable waters of the Appomattox River at confluence with the James River in Hopewell, VA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters in Hopewell, VA, during a fireworks display on June 30, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Hampton Roads or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0330 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, Waterways Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 757-668-5580, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 27, 2018, the Hopewell Recreation and Parks Department notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from approximately 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018, to serve as the city of Hopewell's Fourth of July celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Appomattox River near City Point. Potential hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 234-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 234-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 9 to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 234 yards of a barge in the Appomattox River at approximate coordinates: 37°18′52.20″ N, 077°17′12.52″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 to 9:45 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Appomattox River at confluence with the James River in Hopewell, VA, for 2 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission on-scene to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry within 234 yards of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T05-0330 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0330 Safety Zone, Appomattox River; Hopewell, VA.

    (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: (1) Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads.

    (2) Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.

    (3) Participants mean individuals and vessels involved in the fireworks display.

    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters in the vicinity of the Appomattox River at confluence with the James River, within a 234 yard radius of the fireworks display barge in approximate position 37°18′52.20″ N, 077°17′12.52″ W. (NAD 1983).

    (c) Regulations. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, all persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones of subpart C of this part.

    (2) With the exception of participants, entry into or remaining in this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives. All vessels within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone immediately.

    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his representative can be contacted at telephone number (757) 668-5555. The Coast Guard and designated security vessels enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz), or by visual or verbal hailing on-scene.

    (4) This section does not apply to participants and vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

    (i) Enforcing laws;

    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation, and

    (iii) Emergency response vessels.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Richard J. Wester, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11645 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0221, FRL-9978-81—Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Rescission of Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan for the Reid Gardner Generating Station AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to rescind the Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that we promulgated on August 23, 2012, to regulate air pollutant emissions from Reid Gardner Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 (RGGS), previously located in Clark County, Nevada. The EPA is proposing this action in response to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection's (NDEP) request dated January 16, 2018. The request seeks rescission of the FIP because RGGS Units 1-3 have been permanently decommissioned and are being dismantled and demolished, as demonstrated by the supporting documentation provided by NDEP.

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 16, 2018. Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0221, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 EPA's full 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:

    Krishna Viswanathan, EPA Region IX, (520) 999-7880, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Proposed Action III. Solicitation of Comments IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas in 1977 by adding section 169A to the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.1 We promulgated the initial Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in 1999, and updated it in 2017. The RHR requires states to develop and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas by reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.2 Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.3

    1See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.

    2See generally 40 CFR 51.308.

    3 40 CFR 51.308(e).

    On March 26, 2012, we had approved all portions of Nevada's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (“Nevada RH SIP”), except the BART determination at RGGS for nitrogen oxides (NOX).4 On August 23, 2012, we partially approved and partially disapproved a portion of the Nevada RH SIP.5 Specifically, the EPA approved Nevada's selection of a NOX emissions limit of 0.20 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) as BART for RGGS Units 1 and 2. We disapproved two provisions of Nevada's BART determination for NOX at RGGS: The NOX emissions limit for Unit 3 and the compliance method for all three units. As a result, the EPA promulgated a FIP, which replaced the disapproved SIP provisions by establishing a BART emissions limit for NOX of 0.20 lb/MMBtu at Unit 3, and a 30-day averaging period for compliance on a heat input-weighted basis across all three units (“RGGS RH FIP”).6

    4 77 FR 17334 (March 26, 2012).

    5See 77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012) (proposed rule); 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012) (final rule).

    6 In response to a petition for reconsideration, we later extended the compliance deadline. 78 FR 53033 (August 28, 2013) (codified at 40 CFR 52.1488(f)).

    On January 16, 2015, NV Energy, the owner of RGGS, informed NDEP of the retirement of RGGS Units 1-3 as of December 31, 2014, to comply with state law,7 and by order of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission.8 In March of 2017, RGGS Unit 4, which was not subject to the RGGS RH FIP because it was not BART-eligible, was also shut down,9 and NV Energy began preparations for the permanent decommissioning of RGGS. On August 17, 2017, NDEP discontinued the Class I (Title V) operating permit for the RGGS facility (permit number AP49110897.02). On January 16, 2018, NDEP submitted a request to us asking that we rescind the RGGS FIP.10

    7See Nev. Rev. Stat. section 704.7316(2)(a)(1).

    8 Letter from Greg Lovato, Administrator, NDEP, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated January 16, 2018.

    9See Nev. Rev. Stat. section 704.7316(2)(a)(2).

    10 Letter from Greg Lovato, Administrator, NDEP, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated January 16, 2018, and attachments.

    Section 307(d) of the CAA applies to the RGGS FIP rescission; this rulemaking is being conducted in accordance with those provisions.

    The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0221. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    II. Proposed Action

    Based on our review of the information submitted with the January 16, 2018 letter from NDEP, we are proposing to grant NDEP's request to rescind the RGGS FIP because Units 1-3 have been permanently decommissioned and are being dismantled and demolished.

    III. Solicitation of Comments

    The EPA solicits comments on any issues associated with rescinding the RGGS FIP. In addition, if anyone contacts the EPA by June 15, 2018 requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Krishna Viswanathan at 520-999-7880 or [email protected] to request a hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it will rescind a rule of particular applicability.

    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because rules of particular applicability are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities because the rule merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This action merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.

    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This action merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.

    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS because it merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished.

    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this proposed rule will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Because this proposed rule merely rescinds a FIP covering a generating station that has been permanently decommissioned and is being dismantled and demolished, this proposal will not cause any emissions increases.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Incorporation by reference.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Chapter I, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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 DD—Nevada 2. Section 52.1488 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (f).
    [FR Doc. 2018-11752 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0001; FRL-9978-75—Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze Progress Report AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Washington on November 6, 2017. Washington submitted its Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report (progress report or report) and a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing regional haze implementation plan is not needed at this time. Washington submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act to submit a report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the existing plan addressing regional haze.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0001 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256, email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    I. Background

    Washington submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on December 22, 2010, and supplemental information on December 29, 2011. The EPA approved portions of the Washington regional haze SIP on December 6, 2012, and June 11, 2014.1 In the same June 11, 2014, action, the EPA disapproved certain elements related to best available retrofit technology (BART), discussed in more detail in section III.A. below, and promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the disapproved elements of the SIP. With the exception of the disapproved BART elements, the EPA approved all remaining portions of Washington's regional haze SIP, including: The identification of affected Class I Federal areas 2 (Class I area or areas); the determination of baseline conditions, natural conditions, and uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I area; the emissions inventories; the sources of visibility impairment in Washington's Class I areas; the state's monitoring strategy; the state's consultation with other states and Federal Land Managers; the reasonable progress goals (RPGs); the long-term strategy; and the state's remaining BART determinations.

    1 See 77 FR 72742 and 79 FR 33438.

    2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.

    Five years after submission of the initial regional haze plan, states are required to submit reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On November 6, 2017, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted as a SIP revision a report on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the RPGs for Class I areas.

    The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the progress report an assessment of whether the current “implementation plan” is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term “implementation plan” is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. See 40 CFR 51.301. The EPA is, therefore, proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the “existing implementation plan” under 40 R 51.308(g)(6) and (h). As discussed below, the EPA is proposing to approve Washington's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. We also propose to find that Washington's long-term strategy and emission control measures in the existing regional haze implementation plan are sufficient to meet all established RPGs for 2018.

    II. Context for Understanding Washington's Progress Report

    To facilitate a better understanding of Washington's progress report as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on the regional haze program in Washington.

    A. Framework for Measuring Progress

    The EPA established a metric for determining visibility conditions at Class I areas referred to as the “deciview index,” measured in deciviews (dv), as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors. Washington has eight Class I areas within its borders: Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, Mount Adams Wilderness Area, Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park, Olympic National Park, and Pasayten Wilderness Area. Monitoring data representing visibility conditions in Washington's eight Class I areas is based on the six IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 1. As shown in the table, the NOCA1 monitoring site represents two Class I areas, the WHPA1 site represents two other Class I areas, and the remaining four sites represent individual Class I areas.

    Table 1—Washington IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas Site code Class I area OLYM1 Olympic National Park. NOCA1 North Cascades National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness. PASA1 Pasayten Wilderness. SNPA1 Alpine lakes Wilderness. MORA1 Mt. Rainier National Park. WHPA1 Goat Rocks Wilderness, Mt. Adams Wilderness.

    Under the Regional Haze Rule, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to achieve it. Washington set the RPGs for its eight Class I areas based on regional atmospheric air quality modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) using projected emission reductions in western states from federal and state control strategies expected to be in place before 2018.

    As part of the WRAP coordination and joint modeling, Washington worked closely with other western states to ensure that control measures put in place to meet RPGs for Washington Class I areas were also sufficient to address Washington's impact on Class I areas in other states. The EPA, in our approval of Washington's 2010 regional haze SIP, stated that Washington's control measures coordinated through the WRAP would enable it to achieve the RPGs established for the mandatory Class I areas in Washington, as well as the RPGs established by other states for the Class I areas where Washington sources are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment.3 The progress report provided an update using the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area in Oregon as an example. The coordinated WRAP projected emissions inventories and modeling, approved as part of the 2010 regional haze SIP, showed that in 2002 Washington contributed 33.5% of the nitrate and 21.6% of the sulfate on the worst days at Mount Hood Wilderness Area. However, by 2018, Washington's contribution on the worst days was projected to decrease to 25.9% and 17.5%, respectively. The EPA notes that the Mount Hood Wilderness Area is currently meeting the 2018 reasonable progress goals for best and worst days based on 2012-2016 data,4 further supporting Washington's view that coordination through the WRAP is an effective means of meeting reduction targets in neighboring western states.

    3 77 FR 76174, 76205; 79 FR 33438.

    4 See the EPA's proposed approval of the Oregon regional haze progress report (83 FR 11927, March 19, 2018).

    B. Data Sources for Washington's Progress Report

    Washington relied on the WRAP technical data and analyses in a report titled “Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report” (WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included as Appendix A of the progress report, in the docket for this action. The WRAP report was prepared for the 15 western state members to provide the technical basis for the first of their individual progress reports. Data is presented in this report on a regional, state, and Class I area-specific basis that characterize the difference between baseline conditions (2000-2004) and the first 5-year progress period (2005-2009). Washington also evaluated visibility conditions in its eight Class I areas based on the most recent 5-year data available at the time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).

    III. The EPA's Evaluation of Washington's Progress Report

    This section describes the contents of Washington's progress report and the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

    A. Status of All Measures Included in the Regional Haze Implementation Plan

    In its progress report, Washington provided a description of the control measures that the state relied on to implement the regional haze program and make projections of expected emissions reductions from the 2002 base year to 2018. Washington's regional haze SIP noted that many of the control measures were already-adopted federal and state provisions such as: The Heavy Duty Diesel (2007) Engine Standard, Tier 2 Tailpipe Standards, Large Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle Rule, Non-road Diesel Rule, low sulfur fuel requirements for gasoline engines, on-road diesel engines, off-road diesel engines, and locomotives, as well as Washington's decision to adopt the California low emission vehicle requirements. Other control measures were originally adopted to reduce ozone or particulate matter (PM) with the co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment, such as the smoke management and agriculture burning programs. Because these other state and federal control measures with the expected co-benefit of reducing visibility impairment were generally already in place, the most significant focus of Washington's initial regional haze SIP was implementation of BART, as summarized below.

    1. British Petroleum Cherry Point Refinery

    The British Petroleum (BP) Cherry Point Refinery is located near Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7836, with emissions limitations for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX) from process heaters, as well as limitations on total sulfur content of the refinery fuel gas used in all process heaters and boilers. In the progress report Washington noted that all emission reductions required by the BART order have been implemented. On February 16, 2016, the EPA approved the most recent modification to the BART order which coordinated emission limitations with more recent minor source new source review approvals, and to accommodate future equipment replacement projects (81 FR 7710).

    2. Intalco Aluminum Corporation

    The Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) is a primary aluminum smelter also located at Cherry Point near Ferndale, Washington. Washington issued BART Order 7837, Revision 1, to Intalco on November 15, 2010. The revised order imposed Washington's determined BART control technology, pollution prevention measures, emission limits, compliance dates, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. On June 11, 2014, the EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of Washington's sulfur dioxide (SO2) BART determination for Intalco.5 Concurrent with the limited disapproval, the EPA promulgated a FIP imposing a SO2 “Better than BART” alternative on Intalco.6 This alternative, as requested by Intalco in a letter dated June 22, 2012, consisted of a 5,240 tons per year annual SO2 emission limit on the potlines. The progress report noted that Intalco has complied with the requirements of the BART order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the plant's air operating permit. The progress report also showed that while emissions have increased due to increased aluminum production, levels remain below the SO2 emission limit.

    5 See 79 FR 33438, 33452; See also proposed rulemaking, 77 FR 76174, at pages 76188-76192.

    6 See 40 CFR 52.2500.

    3. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company

    The Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Tesoro) operates a refinery near Anacortes, Washington, that processes crude oil into refined oil products, including ultra-low sulfur diesel oil, jet fuel, #6 fuel oil, and gasoline. The primary emission units of concern were the process heaters, boiler, and flares. On July 7, 2010, Ecology issued BART Order 7838 requiring specific fuel gas sulfur content limits, a wet scrubber system on the catalyst regeneration/carbon monoxide boiler exhaust, and NOX limits on two process heaters. The EPA approved portions of BART Order 7838 but disapproved the NOX BART determination for five BART emission units and promulgated a FIP imposing a “Better than BART” alternative. The federal “Better than BART” alternative was based on Tesoro's request to the EPA on November 5, 2012. In the request, Tesoro identified seven non-BART units at the facility that achieve substantially more SO2 emission reductions compared to the NOX emission reductions that would be achieved from BART on the five BART subject units. Tesoro requested SO2 emission limitations on those non-BART units as an alternative to emission limits for NOX on the BART subject units. The EPA determined that the visibility improvement would be greater under the alternative than under BART, and promulgated the federal “Better than BART” alternative under the FIP.7 The progress report noted that Tesoro continues to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the BART order, the FIP, and all other regulatory requirements contained in the plant's air operating permit. The progress report also showed that SO2 emissions have declined significantly over the past ten years, while NOX and PM emissions have remained stable.

    7 See 40 CFR 52.2501. See also proposed rulemaking 77 FR 76174, at pages 76196-76198.

    4. Alcoa Wenatchee Works

    In our June 11, 2014, final action, the EPA disapproved Washington's BART exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee Works), and promulgated a federal BART FIP for all emission units subject to BART at the facility.8 After evaluating various control technologies, we determined that the costs of compliance and the anticipated visibility benefits did not warrant new controls at the facility. We therefore determined that the existing controls at the facility were BART and adjusted some emission limits in the facility's air operating permit to reflect the level of emission reductions achievable by those existing controls.9 The progress report noted that Alcoa decided to curtail operations at this plant at the end of 2015, until market prices of aluminum recover sufficiently to restart the plant.

    8 See 40 CFR 52.2502.

    9 See 79 FR 33438, page 33440.

    5. Lafarge North America

    Lafarge North America (Lafarge) is located in Seattle, Washington and produces Portland cement by the wet kiln process. The largest BART sources of concern were the rotary kiln and the clinker cooler. The other BART units included raw material handling, finished product storage bins, finish mill conveying system, bagging system, and bulk loading/unloading system baghouses, with a total of just 480 tons per year of PM emissions. Washington issued, and the EPA approved, BART Order 7841 to implement emission controls for NOX and SOX. The progress report noted that prior to the compliance date in the BART order, the company ceased cement production at this facility. The plant must meet all requirements, including NOX and SOX emission controls identified in the BART order, prior to restarting the plant.

    6. TransAlta Centralia Power Plant

    In a final action on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved Washington's BART determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta).10 The BART determination and compliance order established a NOX emission limit of 0.21 pounds per million British Thermal Units, and among other things, required selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) to be installed by January 1, 2013. The BART order also required one coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 2020, and the second coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 2025, unless Washington determines that state or federal law requires that selective catalytic reduction must be installed on either unit.

    10 77 FR 72742, 72744.

    The progress report noted that TransAlta installed SNCR, along with other associated controls, and demonstrated compliance with the initial emission limitation in the order. However, the progress report noted that the plant is also required to determine if it could reliably comply with a lower emission limitation. At the time of the progress report submission, Washington explained that this work had not been completed due to a number of factors, primarily inconsistent plant operation and difficulties with the in situ ammonia slip monitors. With respect to inconsistent plan operation, Washington noted that plant operation has reduced to 50%-60% of full annual capacity compared to greater than 80% when the BART order was issued, with NOX emissions in 2015 approximately half the amount emitted in 2010.

    7. Weyerhaeuser Corporation, Longview

    Weyerhaeuser Corporation (Weyerhaeuser) operates a Kraft pulp and paper mill in Longview, Washington. The facility has three emission units subject to BART: No. 10 recovery furnace; No. 10 smelt dissolver tank; and No. 11 power boiler. On July 7, 2010, Washington issued BART Order 7840. As described in the EPA's proposed approval of BART for this facility, Washington determined that the existing controls, techniques, and emission limits, already in place to meet prior new source review and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) requirements, constituted BART for NOX, SO2, and PM.11 Specifically, these controls were an electrostatic precipitator and a staged combustion system for the recovery furnace and a high efficiency wet scrubber for the smelt dissolver tank. The No. 11 power boiler controls were: (1) A multiclone to remove large particulate, (2) dry trona injection to remove SO2, (3) a dry electrostatic precipitator for additional particulate control, and (4) good combustion practices for NOX emission control. The progress report noted that Weyerhauser continues to comply with the BART order.

    11 77 FR 76174, at page 76201.

    8. Port Townsend Paper Company

    Port Townsend Paper Company operates a kraft pulp and paper mill in Port Townsend, Washington that manufactures kraft pulp, kraft papers, and lightweight liner board. The four BART eligible emission units identified in the 2010 regional haze SIP were the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, No. 10 power boiler, and lime kiln. On October 20, 2010, Washington issued Order 7839, Revision 1, which established emission limits for the existing controls at the facility as BART. The controls under the BART order are an electrostatic precipitator to control PM from the recovery furnace, a wet scrubber to control PM and SO2 from the smelt dissolving tank, a multiclone and wet scrubber to control PM emissions from the No. 10 power boiler, and a Venturi wet scrubber to control PM and SO2 from the lime kiln. The progress report noted that the facility continues to comply with the BART order.

    B. Summary of Visibility Conditions

    In the progress report, Washington documented the differences between the visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004) and the most current five year averaging period available at the time Washington developed the progress report (2010-2014).12 Washington demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in visibility for the 20% most and least impaired days between the baseline (2000-2004) and current (2010-2014) visibility periods, meeting all the 2018 reasonable progress goals established in the regional haze SIP.

    12 Additional in-depth analysis for the 2005-2009 progress period conducted by the WRAP was also included as an appendix to the progress report.

    Table 2—Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Days Monitor Class I area 20% Most impaired days 2000-04
  • Baseline
  • (dv)
  • 2010-14
  • Current
  • period
  • (dv)
  • 2018 RPGs
  • (dv)
  • 20% Least impaired days 2000-04
  • Baseline
  • (dv)
  • 2010-14
  • Current
  • period
  • (dv)
  • 2018 RPGs
  • (dv)
  • OLYM1 Olympic Nat'l Park 16.7 13.8 16.4 6.0 3.7 6.0 NOCA1 North Cascades National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness 16.0 13.0 15.6 3.4 2.7 3.4 SNPA1 Alpine Lakes Wilderness 17.8 15.6 16.3 5.5 3.4 5.5 MORA1 Mount Rainier National Park 18.2 15.2 16.7 5.5 3.9 5.5 WHPA1 Goat Rocks Wilderness, and Mount Adams Wilderness 12.8 11.8 11.8 1.7 0.9 1.7 PASA1 Pasayten Wilderness 15.2 13.1 15.1 2.7 1.8 2.7

    Washington's progress report included an analysis of progress and impediments to progress. With respect to impediments to progress, Washington cited wildfire smoke originating in the state or transported from outside the state, offshore and ocean-going vessel emissions, mobile source emissions (on-road and non-road sources under federal emission control), and international emissions as factors largely beyond state control that can interfere with progress toward improved visibility in Class I areas. Further detail on many of these source categories is included in the emissions inventory discussion below.

    The progress report also contained a review of Washington's visibility monitoring strategy, concluding that the IMPROVE network continues to comply with the monitoring requirements in the Regional Haze Rule. Washington will continue to rely on the IMPROVE network to collect and analyze the visibility data and suggested additional sites for consideration should additional federal or state funding become available. These proposed sites include the southwest portion of Olympic National Park, and Stevens Pass or Stehekin to better reflect conditions at Glacier Peak Wilderness.

    C. Summary of Emissions Reductions

    The Washington progress report also included a summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state from the control measures discussed above. The progress report included the 2002 WRAP inventory used for baseline condition modeling, Ecology's periodic comprehensive inventory submitted to the EPA for the national emission inventories for the years 2005 and 2011, and the WRAP's projected emissions inventory for 2018. The progress report highlighted significant differences between the inventories due to methodology changes over the years. First, mobile source emission estimates are not directly comparable because they are based on different emissions models. Starting in 2007, the EPA required the use of the MOVES model for mobile source emissions modeling. The progress report noted that the model transition resulted in significant changes, especially for NOX emissions when comparing prior year estimates and projections based on those estimates, including the WRAP's 2018 projections calculated with Mobile 6.2. Second, the WRAP did not estimate direct PM2.5 from mobile sources, only dust from road surfaces, representing a large difference between the WRAP inventories and Ecology's 2005 and 2011 inventories. Third, the WRAP emission inventories did not separately report emissions from locomotives or marine vessels. These emissions are included in the mobile source segment. Lastly, the progress report noted that Washington recently updated its inventory to reflect revised emission factors for some area source categories and fires, compared to what was used by the WRAP. Factoring in these differences in the emissions inventory methodology, Washington concluded that emissions have declined for most source categories.

    Table 3—Sulfur Oxides Emissions by Category Category WRAP 2002 2005 2011 WRAP 2018 Stationary sources 52,885 23,367 13,832 37,444 Area sources 7,311 1,562 1,472 8,667 Wildfires 1,641 1,563 348 1,641 Anthropogenic fires 1,411 1,043 Mobile sources 19,436 7,505 1,059 941 Locomotives 1,546 95 Marine vessels 15,774 11,529 Total 82,684 51,317 28,335 49,736 Table 4—Nitrogen Oxides Emissions by Category Category WRAP 2002 2005 2011 WRAP 2018 Stationary sources 43,355 43,386 26,565 49,456 Area sources 17,587 8,581 8,599 22,746 Wildfires 5,997 5,714 679 5,997 Anthropogenic fires 6,821 4,971 Mobile sources 286,701 198,168 202,436 102,440 Locomotives 18,973 15,026 Marine vessels 29,142 20,486 Biogenic 17,923 17,923 Total 378,384 303,964 273,791 203,533 Table 5—Fine Particle Emissions by Category Category WRAP 2002 2005 2011 WRAP 2018 Stationary sources 2,257 5,773 3,958 2,625 Area sources 12,708 39,822 55,060 17,234 Wildfires 1,139 22,196 3,706 1,139 Anthropogenic fires 3,869 2,691 Mobile sources 2,819 6,944 8,757 2,910 Locomotives 583 428 Marine vessels 1,440 1,021 Fugitive and windblown dust 18,358 22,767 Total 41,150 76,758 72,930 49,366

    In its progress report, Washington concluded that the state is making adequate progress in improving visibility as a result of control measures in the regional haze implementation plan. The state also identified more recent federal and international control measures not included in 2018 emission projections. These measures include the International Maritime Organization NOX and fuel sulfur requirements, the more stringent Emission Control Area (ECA) requirements for the United States and Canadian west coasts, updated federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, and more stringent federal mobile source standards promulgated since Washington's submission of the original regional haze SIP.

    D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), if the state determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the EPA a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time. Within the progress report, Washington provided a negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the finding that visibility on the 20% most and least impaired days has improved, and Washington has attained the 2018 RPGs at all Washington IMPROVE monitors. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Washington adequately addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination that the existing Washington regional haze implementation plan requires no substantive revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Class I areas.

    E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))

    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state provided the Federal Land Managers with an opportunity for consultation at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan revision). The state also included a description of how it addressed the comments provided by the Federal Land Managers, presented in Appendix E of the progress report. The EPA proposes to find that Washington has addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).

    IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, submitted by Washington to the EPA on November 6, 2017, as meeting the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze implementation plan is adequate to meet the state's visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We propose to find that Washington fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with Federal Land Managers.

    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 Clean Air Act and applicable federal regulations.13 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:

    13 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).

    • 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 actions such as 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 this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nevertheless, the EPA offered consultation and coordination to Washington tribes in letters dated July, 6, 2017.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 17, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11572 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0186; FRL-9978-94—Region 4] Approval of TN Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on May 12, 2017, and supplemented on February 9, 2018, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units. Since all the CISWI units in the State are located at the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee, the State has issued the facility an operating permit the terms of which are the relevant provisions of the EG and has submitted the permit as part of its state plan.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0186] at https://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:

    Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be reached via telephone at 404-562-9013 and via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and other solid waste.

    On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 FR 75338. EPA revised the NSPS and EG for CISWI units on March 21, 2011. See 76 FR 15704. Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, EPA received petitions for reconsideration requesting that EPA reconsider numerous provisions in the rule. EPA granted reconsideration on certain issues and promulgated a CISWI reconsideration rule on February 7, 2013. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, EPA received petitions to further reconsider certain provisions of the 2013 NSPS and EG for CISWI units. On January 21, 2015, EPA granted reconsideration on four specific issues and finalized reconsideration of the CISWI NSPS and EG on June 23, 2016. See 81 FR 40956.

    Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

    II. Review of Tennessee's CISWI State Plan Submittal

    Tennessee submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state 1 on May 12, 2017, and supplemented its submittal on February 9, 2018. EPA has reviewed the plan for existing CISWI units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. State plans must include the following nine essential elements: Identification of legal authority; identification of mechanism for implementation; inventory of affected facilities; emissions inventory; emissions limits; compliance schedules; testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; public hearing records; and annual state progress reports on facility compliance. Since all the CISWI units identified in the State are located at Eastman Chemical Company's facility in Kingsport, Tennessee (“Eastman”), the State has issued the facility an operating permit (permit number 072397) the terms of which are the relevant provisions of the EG and has submitted the permit as the legal mechanism to implement its state plan.

    1 The submitted state plan does not apply in Indian country located in the state.

    A. Identification of Legal Authority

    Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement the EG's emission standards and compliance schedule. In its submittal, Tennessee cites the following State law provisions and/or subsections thereof, among other provisions, for its authority to implement and enforce the plan: Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) 1200-03-09-.03(8) (authority to include CAA requirements and federal regulations in permits); T.C.A. 68-201-111 (authority to bring civil action for injunction relief to prevent violations), 68-201-116(a) (authority to issue orders to correct violations), 68-201-105(b)(2) (authority to collection information from sources), 68-201-105(b)(3) (inspection authority), and 68-201-105(b)(8) (authority to institute judicial proceedings to compel compliance). EPA has reviewed the cited authorities and has preliminarily concluded that the State has adequately demonstrated legal authority to implement and enforce the CISWI state plan in Tennessee.

    B. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanisms for Implementing the Plan

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as “a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.” See also 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(8). The State has adopted enforceable emission standards for affected CISWI units via state operating permit number 072397, issued to Eastman on May 10, 2017. EPA has preliminarily concluded that the permit terms meet the emission standard requirement under 40 CFR 60.24(a).

    C. Inventory of Affected Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Tennessee has identified seven affected units at one facility: Boilers 18-24 at Eastman. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee has met the affected unit inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1).

    D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected CISWI Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions from CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Tennessee submitted, and later supplemented, an emissions inventory of CISWI units as part of its state plan. This emissions inventory contains CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee has met the emission inventory requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2).

    E. Emission Limitations, Operator Training and Qualification, Waste Management Plan, and Operating Limits for CISWI Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operating training and qualifications requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Since all of the CISWI units identified in the State are located at Eastman, the State has issued the facility an operating permit the terms of which are the relevant provisions of the EG. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4).

    F. Compliance Schedules

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. In Eastman's state operating permit number 072397, Eastman is required to comply with the EG initial compliance requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 through 60.2706. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3).

    G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an approvable state plan must require that sources conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Tennessee's state plan incorporates the model rule provisions of the EG in state operating permit number 072397. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5).

    H. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan Revision

    40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing, make all relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing, and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an interstate region, each state within the region. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(6) requires that each state plan include certification that the hearing was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission. In its submittal, Tennessee submitted records, including transcripts, of a public hearing held on April 19, 2017. Tennessee provided notice and made all relevant plan materials available prior to the hearing. Tennessee certifies in its submittal that a hearing was held and that the State received no oral comments on the plan, and it describes the written submissions received. Thus, EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.2515(a)(6).

    I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Tennessee provides in its plan that it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Tennessee's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7).

    III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's state plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 21, 2017. In addition, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart RR to reflect this action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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);

    • 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).

    In addition, this rule 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. It also 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). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not proposing to approve the submitted rule to apply in Indian country located in the state, and because the submitted rule will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7411.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11754 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571, 580, 581, 582, 583, 585, 587, 588, 591, 592, 593, 594, and 595 [Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0064] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Plain Language and Small Business Impacts of Motor Vehicle Safety AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notification of regulatory review; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NHTSA seeks comments on the economic impact of its regulations on small entities. As required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we are attempting to identify rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We also request comments on ways to make these regulations easier to read and understand. The focus of this notification is rules that specifically relate to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and motor vehicle equipment.

    DATES:

    You should submit comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments [identified by Docket Number NHTSA-2018-0064] by any of the following methods:

    Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the U.S. Government regulations website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

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

    Hand Delivery: If you plan to submit written comments by hand or courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

    Fax: Written comments may be faxed to 202-493-2251.

    • You may call Docket Management at 1-800-647-5527.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional Information, see the COMMENTS heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Roth, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-0818, fax 202-366-3189).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Background and Purpose

    Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), requires agencies to conduct periodic reviews of final rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. The purpose of the reviews is to determine whether such rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules on a substantial number of such small entities.

    B. Review Schedule

    On December 1, 2008, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (73 FR 72758) a 10-year review plan for its existing regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, “we”) has divided its rules into 10 groups by subject area. Each group will be reviewed once every 10 years, undergoing a two-stage process-an Analysis Year and a Review Year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall publication schedule of the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, see http://www.regulations.gov. Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010; and so on.

    During the Analysis Year, we will request public comment on and analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In each fall's Regulatory Agenda, we will publish the results of the analyses we completed during the previous year. For rules that have subparts, or other discrete sections of rules that do have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we will announce that we will be conducting a formal section 610 review during the following 12 months.

    The section 610 review will determine whether a specific rule should be revised or revoked to lessen its impact on small entities. We will consider: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other federal rules or with state or local government rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. At the end of the Review Year, we will publish the results of our review. The following table shows the 10-year analysis and review schedule:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Section 610 Reviews Year Regulations to be reviewed Analysis
  • year
  • Review
  • year
  • 1 49 CFR 571.223 through 571.500, and parts 575 and 579 2008 2009 2 23 CFR parts 1200 and 1300 2009 2010 3 49 CFR parts 501 through 526 and 571.213 2010 2011 4 49 CFR 571.131, 571.217, 571.220, 571.221, and 571.222 2011 2012 5 49 CFR 571.101 through 571.110, and 571.135, 571.138 and 571.139 2012 2013 6 49 CFR parts 529 through 578, except parts 571 and 575 2013 2014 7 49 CFR 571.111 through 571.129 and parts 580 through 588 2014 2015 8 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.212 2015 2016 9 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217 2016 2017 10 49 CFR parts 591 through 595 and new parts and subparts 2017 2018
    C. Regulations Under Analysis

    NHTSA did not publish a Federal Register notification for year 9, opting instead to publish years 9 and 10 simultaneously. During this year, we will continue to conduct a preliminary assessment of the following sections of 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and also 49 CFR parts 591 through 595 and new parts and subparts.

    Year 9 Section Title 571.214 Side impact protection. 571.215 [RESERVED]. 571.216 Roof crush resistance; Applicable unless a vehicle is certified to § 571.216a. 571.216a Roof crush resistance; Upgraded Standard. 571.218 Motorcycle Helmets. 571.219 Windshield zone intrusion. Year 10 Section Title 591 Importation of Vehicles and Equipment. 592 Registered Importers of Vehicles not originally manufactured to meet FMVSSs. 593 Determination that a vehicle not originally manufactured to meet FMVSS is eligible for importation. 594 Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141. 595 “Make Inoperative” Exemptions. 571.141 Sound Alerts. 571.136 ESC for Heavy Trucks. 571.111 Rear Visibility. 571.208, 571.210 Occupant Crash Protection. 571.214 Ejection Mitigation. 571.218 Motorcycle Helmets. 571.121 Air Brake Systems. 571.216 Roof Crush Resistance. 571.3, 571.5, 571.10, 571.210 Designated Seating Positions and Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. 571.126 ESC Systems; Controls and Displays. 571.214 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity, Electric Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection, Side Impact Phase in Reporting Requirements.

    We are seeking comments on whether any requirements in 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and 49 CFR 591 through 595, and all new parts and subparts added since 2008 have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. Business entities are generally defined as small businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, for the purposes of receiving Small Business Administration (SBA) assistance. Size standards established by SBA in 13 CFR 121.201 are expressed either in number of employees or annual receipts in millions of dollars, unless otherwise specified. The number of employees or annual receipts indicates the maximum allowed for a concern and its affiliates to be considered small. If your business or organization is a small entity and if any of the requirements in 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and 49 CFR 591 through 595, and all new parts and subparts added since 2008 have a significant economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a comment to explain how and to what degree these rules affect you, the extent of the economic impact on your business or organization, and why you believe the economic impact is significant.

    If the agency determines that there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, it will ask for comment in a subsequent notification during the Review Year on how these impacts could be reduced without reducing safety.

    II. Plain Language A. Background and Purpose

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

    • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

    • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

    • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

    • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

    • Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

    • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

    • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.

    B. Review Schedule

    In conjunction with our section 610 reviews, we will be performing plain language reviews over a ten-year period on a schedule consistent with the section 610 review schedule. We will review 49 CFR 571.214 through 571.219, except 571.217, and 49 CFR 591 through 595, and all new parts and subparts added since 2008, determine if these regulations can be reorganized and/or rewritten to make them easier to read, understand, and use. We encourage interested persons to submit draft regulatory language that clearly and simply communicates regulatory requirements, and other recommendations, such as for putting information in tables that may make the regulations easier to use.

    Comments How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.

    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21.) We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

    Please submit one copy of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_reproducible. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

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

    How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

    How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

    Will the Agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

    How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location.

    You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, take the following steps:

    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) FDMS provides two basic methods of searching to retrieve dockets and docket materials that are available in the system: (a) “Quick Search” to search using a full-text search engine, or (b) “Advanced Search,” which displays various indexed fields such as the docket name, docket identification number, phase of the action, initiating office, date of issuance, document title, document identification number, type of document, Federal Register reference, CFR citation, etc. Each data field in the advanced search may be searched independently or in combination with other fields, as desired. Each search yields a simultaneous display of all available information found in FDMS that is relevant to the requested subject or topic.

    (3) You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable.

    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    Terry T. Shelton, Associate Administrator for the National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11671 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    83 105 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Renew a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intention to seek approval to collect information in support of research and related activities.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 30, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Web Forms for Research Data, Models, Materials, and Publications as well as Study and Event Registration.

    Type of Request: Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

    OMB Number: 0518-0032.

    Expiration Date: December 31, 2018.

    Abstract: Sections 1703 and 1705 of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), (Pub. L. 105-277) Title XVII, require agencies by October 21, 2003, to provide for the option of electronic submission of information by the public. To advance GPEA goals, online forms are needed to allow the public to request from ARS research data, models, materials, and publications and to register for scientific studies and events. For the convenience of the public, the forms itemize the information we need to provide a timely response. Information from forms will only be used by ARS for the purposes identified.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response (range: 1-5 minutes).

    Respondents: Agricultural researchers, students, teachers, business people, members of service organizations, community groups, other Federal and local government agencies, and the general public.

    Estimated Number Respondents: 8,750. This is an increase of 3,750 from the 5,000 estimated respondents in the previous Approved Information Collection due to more actual annual respondents than originally estimated in 2015 when fewer software models were available for download. As of May 2018, 147 software models were available for download through the ARS website https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/software/.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 437.5 hours.

    Copies of forms used in this information collection can be obtained from Jill Lake, ARS Webmaster, [email protected]

    The information collection extension requested by ARS is for a period of 3 years. Comments: Are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 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.

    Dated: May 17, 2018. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11598 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Information Collection Request; Direct Loan Servicing-Special Programs AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision and an extension of a currently approved information collection request that supports Direct Loan Servicing-Special Programs. The information is used in eligibility and feasibility determinations on borrower requests for disaster set-aside, primary loan servicing, buyout at market value, and homestead protection, as well as liquidation of security.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments that we receive by July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail, hand delivery, or courier: J. Lee Nault, Senior Loan Officer, USDA/FSA/FLP, STOP 0523, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0503.

    You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting J. Lee Nault at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    J. Lee Nault, (202) 720-6834. Persons with disabilities who require alternative mean for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, and so on) should contact the USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Farm Loan Programs, Direct Loan Servicing—Special.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0233.

    OMB Expiration Date: 08/31/2018.

    Type of Request: Extension with a revision.

    Abstract: The Farm Loan Programs provide loans to family farmers to purchase real estate and equipment and finance agricultural production. 7 CFR 766, Direct Loan Servicing-Special, provides the requirements for servicing financially distressed and delinquent direct loan borrowers. The loan servicing options include disaster set-aside, primary loan servicing (including reamortization, rescheduling, deferral, write down and conservation contracts), buyout at market value, and homestead protection. FSA also services borrowers who file bankruptcy or liquidate security when available servicing options are not sufficient to produce a feasible plan. The information collections contained in the regulation are necessary to evaluate a borrower's request for consideration of the special servicing actions.

    The numbers of respondents and responses increased because the loan servicing activities increased by 15 percent to reflect the current numbers since the last OMB approval. The annual burden hours decreased due to removal of travel times from the request. The respondents are going to the County office to do regular and customary (or normal) business for the Farm Loan Programs.

    For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.

    Estimate of Respondent Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 0.374 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collections of information.

    Type of Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for profit farms.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 17,174.

    Estimated Number of Reponses per Respondent: 1.869.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 32,114.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 0.374.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 12,036.

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Richard Fordyce, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11694 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Library Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Renew a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, dated August 29, 1995), this notice announces the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection, Information Collection for Document Delivery Services at the National Agricultural Library (NAL), which expires November 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: USDA, ARS, NAL, Digitization and Access Branch, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 305-D, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kay Derr, Librarian, telephone: 301-504-5879; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Information Collection for Document Delivery Services.

    OMB Number: 0518-0027.

    Expiration Date of Approval: November 30, 2018.

    Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection process.

    Abstract: In its role as both a preeminent agricultural research library and a national library of the United States, NAL (part of the USDA's ARS) provides loans and copies of materials from its collections to libraries and other institutions and organizations. NAL follows applicable copyright laws and interlibrary loan guidelines, standards, codes, and practices when providing loans and copies and charges a fee, if applicable, for this service. To request a loan or copy, institutions must provide a formal request to NAL using either NAL's web-based online request system or an interlibrary loan request system such as the Online Computer Library Center or the National Library of Medicine's Docline. Information in these requests includes the name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the party requesting the material. The requestor must also provide a statement acknowledging copyright compliance, bibliographic information for the material they are requesting, and the maximum dollar amount they are willing to pay for the material. The collected information is used to deliver the material to the requestor, bill for and track payment of applicable fees, monitor the return of loaned material to NAL, identify and locate the requested material in NAL collections, and determine whether the requesting party consents to the fees charged by NAL.

    Estimate of Burden: Average 1.00 minute per response.

    Description of Respondents: Respondents to the collection of information are those libraries, institutions, or organizations that request interlibrary loans or copies of material in the NAL collections. Each respondent must furnish the information for each loan or copying request.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 590.

    Frequency of Responses: Average 7 per respondent.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 69 hours.

    Comments: Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques. Comments may be sent to Kay Derr at the address listed above within 60 days of the date of publication. 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.

    Dated: May 17, 2018. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11582 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Solicitation of Commodity Board Topics and Contribution of Funding Under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of opportunity for commodity boards to submit topics and contribute funding under the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.

    SUMMARY:

    NIFA is soliciting topics from eligible commodity board entities (Federal and State- level commodity boards, as defined below) that the entities are willing to co-fund equally with NIFA. To be considered for inclusion in future Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive grants program Requests for Applications (RFAs), topics must relate to the established priority areas of AFRI.

    Commodity boards are those entities established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, or a State commodity board or other equivalent State entity. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice under the heading “Eligibility for Submitting Topics” for further information.

    If, after NIFA's evaluation, proposed topics are accepted for inclusion, they will be incorporated into AFRI competitive grants program RFAs. As a condition of funding grants pertaining to a topic, NIFA will require an agreement with the commodity board to provide funds equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic.

    This Notice invites topic submissions from commodity boards as defined above, outlines the process NIFA will use to evaluate the appropriateness of these topics for inclusion in AFRI RFAs, and describes the commitment required of commodity boards for NIFA to jointly fund competitively selected AFRI awards within a topic area submitted by the commodity boards.

    DATES:

    Commodity boards may submit topics at any time; however, all topics received by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 30, 2018 will be considered for the fiscal year 2019 AFRI RFAs. Topics submitted by eligible commodity board entities after this date are not guaranteed review for fiscal year 2019, but will be considered for RFAs to be issued in future years. Frequently asked questions about commodity board topics are available on the NIFA Website (https://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards-frequently-asked-questions).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit topics by the following method: Website: https://nifa.usda.gov/webform/commodity-board-topic-submission/ Instructions: The topic submission must be through the website form; emailed topics will not be accepted.

    Required fields are marked. Topics submitted through this form will not be posted to a public site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Mirando; Phone: (202) 401-4336, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose

    This Notice begins the fourth topic submission cycle to implement section 2(b)(4)(F) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 3157(b)(4)(F)), as added by section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, which requires NIFA to “establish procedures, including timelines, under which an entity established under a commodity promotion law (as such term is defined under section 501(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401(a))) or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity) may directly submit to [NIFA] for consideration proposals for requests for applications” within the AFRI Program.

    Stakeholder feedback gathered in previous years informed this Notice and the process NIFA is using to implement section 7404. This Notice invites entities established under a commodity promotion law or State commodity boards (or other equivalent State entities) to submit topics they are proposing for inclusion in fiscal year 2019 AFRI RFAs. Topics must relate to the established AFRI priority areas, which were authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309 as: Plant health and production and plant products; animal health and production and animal products; food safety, nutrition, and health; bioenergy, natural resources, and environment; agriculture systems and technology; and agriculture economics and rural communities. The AFRI priorities are subject to change based on future Farm Bills, and any changes will be reflected on the NIFA website. A summary statement on AFRI is included below. To learn more about AFRI programs, including program priorities, typical award budget amounts, and examples of RFAs, please visit: http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/.

    AFRI Program Overview

    The AFRI program is the largest agricultural competitive grants program in the United States and a primary funding source for research, education, and extension projects that bring practical solutions to some of today's most critical societal challenges. AFRI programs impact all components of agriculture, including farm and ranch efficiency and profitability, bioenergy, forestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, and genetic improvement of plants and animals.

    In FY 2019, NIFA plans to solicit applications for AFRI funding opportunities in the AFRI priority areas authorized in the Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309. It is anticipated these will include the AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program RFA and the AFRI Education and Workforce Development RFA. The annual AFRI Foundational and Applied Science Program RFA solicits grant applications focused predominately, but not exclusively, on fundamental scientific research addressing statutory priorities. The AFRI Education and Workforce Development RFA solicits grant applications for training K-14 teachers and administrators, undergraduate research and extension experiential learning fellowships, and pre- and post-doctoral fellowships. Any additional AFRI RFAs made available in FY 2019 may be included in this solicitation.

    Eligibility for Submitting Topics

    Eligible commodity board entities are those established under a commodity promotion law, as such term is defined under 7 U.S.C. 7401(a), or a State commodity board (or other equivalent State entity). Language in 7 U.S.C. 7401(a) defines a “commodity promotion law” as “a Federal law that provides for the establishment and operation of a promotion program regarding an agricultural commodity that includes a combination of promotion, research, industry information, or consumer information activities, is funded by mandatory assessments on producers or processors, and is designed to maintain or expand markets and uses for the commodity (as determined by the Secretary).” 7 U.S.C. 7401(a) includes a list of such Federal laws.

    A current list of approved entities is maintained at (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/). Additionally, entities eligible to submit topics include State commodity boards (or other equivalent State entities). This includes commodity boards authorized by State law; commodity boards that are not authorized by State law, but are organized and operate within a State and meet the requirements of their authorizing statute; and commodity boards that are authorized by a State and operate within the State for commodities that have no Federal program or oversight.

    Topic Submission Guidance and Procedures

    Topics may be submitted at any time and will be evaluated by NIFA on an annual basis. However, to guarantee consideration for the proposed fiscal year 2019 AFRI RFAs, topics must be received by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 30, 2018.

    Each topic proposed must be submitted using the online topic submission form provided at: https://nifa.usda.gov/webform/commodity-board-topic-submission/. Commodity boards may propose support for multiple awards for each topic proposed. For each topic the commodity board proposes to support, the minimum amount contributed by the commodity board must align with budget guidance for each AFRI area (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/) and comply with the maximum amount of $2.5 million allowed per topic. NIFA does not intend to match funding from a single commodity board in excess of $10 million in any year. Commodity boards should only submit topics that have a strong economic impact on their industry and U.S. agriculture, as a whole. Examples of topics typically supported by AFRI can be found at http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/.

    If topics are accepted for funding, they will be incorporated into AFRI RFAs, and grants supporting the topic area may be awarded to AFRI eligible entities based on a competitive peer review process. As a condition of funding grants in a topic, NIFA will require an agreement by the commodity board to provide funds in an amount equal to the amount NIFA is contributing under the agreed upon topic. If a topic is selected for inclusion in an RFA, the commodity board submitting the topic will be required to maintain the confidentiality of the topic until the RFA is issued by NIFA. All commodity board funds and NIFA funds must be available at the time projects are selected for funding; awards are fully funded at the beginning of the award. Applications submitted under topics provided by commodity boards will be required to include a letter of support for co-funding from the the commodity board that proposed the topic.

    Evaluation and Notification Process

    NIFA will screen proposed research topics to ensure eligibility of the submitting commodity boards. NIFA will also consult with USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to determine that submissions and proposed financial contributions are consistent with commodity promotion laws and commodity boards' charters, as applicable.

    Commodity board topics are reviewed by an internal panel based on evaluation criteria developed using stakeholder input from commodity boards and other stakeholders from government, industry, and academe. Each topic will be evaluated based on alignment with one or more of the statutory AFRI priority areas (AFRI priority areas authorized in the Farm Bill and described in 7 CFR 3430.309); alignment with the President's budget proposal for NIFA, as identified in the Department of Agriculture's annual budget submission; and alignment with the priority areas in the AFRI RFAs to be released by NIFA during the fiscal year for which the commodity board is proposing a topic for funding (for example, within the AFRI Foundational and Applied Science RFA, the AFRI Animal Health and Production and Animal Products' “Animal Reproduction” priority area).

    From those topics received by 5:00 p.m. EDT on July 30, 2018, NIFA will select the topic(s) that were evaluated favorably for inclusion in the appropriate FY 2019 AFRI RFA. NIFA will notify commodity boards as to whether their topics will be included by August 29, 2018. Based on the evaluation, NIFA reserves the right to negotiate with commodity boards should changes be required to accept topics and funding amounts. Any changes to topics and funding amounts will be reviewed by USDA's AMS to determine if such changes are consistent with applicable commodity promotion laws.

    NIFA will evaluate topics submitted after the July 30, 2018 deadline on an annual basis and notify commodity boards whether their topics will be included in subsequent RFAs within two weeks following the meeting of the internal evaluation panel, the date of which will be published on NIFA's Commodity Boards web page at (http://nifa.usda.gov/commodity-boards/).

    Done at Washington, DC, on May 21, 2018. Thomas Shanower, Acting Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11634 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the West Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Friday, June 1, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the upcoming SAC briefing to be held in July 2018.

    DATES:

    Friday, June 1, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST.

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy Davis at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda: Wednesday, June 1, 2018 I. Rollcall II. Welcome III. Discuss Briefing Meeting Plans IV. New Business V. Adjourn Dated: May 24, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11624 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EST) on Wednesday, June 20, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is discuss plans for a briefing meeting to be scheduled in August 2018.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. EST.

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy Davis at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-800-474-8920 and conference call ID number: 8310490.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 I. Rollcall II. Welcome III. Discuss Plans for Briefing Meeting IV. New Business V. Adjourn Dated: May 24, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11623 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 1:00 p.m. (CST) on Friday, June 1, 2018. The purpose of the meeting is for the SAC members to discuss potential topics of study.

    DATES:

    Friday, June 1, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. CST

    Public Call-In Information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-572-7033 and conference call 9333138.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mussatt at [email protected] or by phone at (312)-353-8312.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-572-7033 and conference call 9333138. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-888-364-3109 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-572-7033 and conference call 9333138.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL, faxed to (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279, click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda: Friday, June 1, 2018 I. Rollcall II. Welcome and Introductions III. SAC Discussion on Civil Rights Issues in MS IV. Adjourn Dated: May 24, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11625 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [05/14/2018 through 05/22/2018] Firm name Firm address Date

  • accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s) Long-Stanton Manufacturing Company, Inc 9388 Sutton Place, West Chester Township, OH 45011 5/16/2018 The firm manufactures miscellaneous steel stampings, assemblies and other metal parts. Micro Dimensions, Inc 617 South 6th Way, Ridgefield, WA 98642 5/17/2018 The firm manufactures precision parts for the steel, aluminum, plastics, aerospace, sawmills, and medical industries. Spika Design & Manufacturing, Inc 254 Cottonwood Creek Road, Lewiston, MT 59457 5/17/2018 The firm manufactures aluminum structures.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11635 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet June 12, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.

    Agenda Public Session 1. Opening remarks by the Chairman 2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security 3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public 4. Export Enforcement update 5. Regulations update 6. Working group reports 7. Automated Export System update Closed Session 8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than June 5, 2018.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 23, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2, 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11621 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-849, A-552-812] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan and Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on steel wire garment hangers (hangers) from Taiwan and Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ian Hamilton, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4798.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 10, 2012, Commerce published in the Federal Register notice of the antidumping duty order on hangers from Taiwan.1 On February 5, 2013, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on hangers from Vietnam.2 On November 1, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the first five-year (sunset) reviews of the antidumping duty orders on hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).3

    1See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan, 77 FR 72424 (December 10, 2012).

    2See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 8105 (February 5, 2013).

    3See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 82 FR 50612 (November 1, 2017).

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this sunset review was March 5, 2018.4

    4See 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,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    Commerce conducted this sunset review on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), because it received a complete, timely, and adequate response from a domestic interested party but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result of its review, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.5 Commerce, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the antidumping duty orders be revoked. On May 22, 2018, the ITC published notice of its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.6

    5See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 83 FR 10433 (March 9, 2018) (Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated March 5, 2017.

    6See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-487 and 731-TA-1197-1198 (Review), USITC Publication 4784 (May 2018); see also Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam, 83 FR 23723 (May 22, 2018).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise subject to the orders is hangers. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.7

    7 For a full description of the scope of orders, see Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty orders on hangers from Taiwan and Vietnam. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The applicability date of the continuation of the orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce intends to initiate the next sunset review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the applicability date of continuation.

    This sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11541 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-867] Large Power Transformers From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that Hyundai Electric & Energy Systems Co., Ltd. (HEES) is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (HHI), and that HHI's current cash deposit rate is the rate applicable for all entries of large power transformers exported by HEES. Further, we preliminarily determine that the application of the cash deposit rate applicable to HEES shall be made retroactively to the effective date of the first entry by HEES.

    DATES:

    Applicable May 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Moses Song, 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) 482-5041.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 31, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on large power transformers (LPTs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).1 HHI is one of the producers/exporters reviewed in the less-than fair-value investigation and has been reviewed in each subsequent administrative review of the Order. During the 2014/2015 administrative review, covering the period August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015, Commerce assigned HHI an antidumping duty rate of 60.81 percent, finding that the application of total adverse facts available (AFA) was warranted.2 In addition, during the 2015/2016 administrative review, covering the period August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016, Commerce continued to assign HHI an antidumping duty rate of 60.81 percent, finding that the application of total AFA was warranted.3

    1See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 53177 (August 31, 2012) (the Order).

    2See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 13432 (March 13, 2017) (2014/2015 Final Results).

    3See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 83 FR 11679 (March 16, 2018) (2015-2016 Final Results).

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), on December 4, 2017, Commerce self-initiated a Changed Circumstances Review (CCR) regarding HHI's new spin off company, HEES, based on information obtained (1) during the course of the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 administrative reviews, (2) via public search and the phone conversation with a representative retained by ABB Inc.'s (ABB's or the petitioner's) counsel, and (3) from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.4

    4See Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 82 FR 57210 (December 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    Scope of the Order

    The scope of this Order covers large liquid dielectric power transformers having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete.

    Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies consisting of the active part and any other parts attached to, imported with or invoiced with the active parts of LPTs. The “active part” of the transformer consists of one or more of the following when attached to or otherwise assembled with one another: The steel core or shell, the windings, electrical insulation between the windings, the mechanical frame for an LPT.

    The product definition encompasses all such LPTs regardless of name designation, including but not limited to step-up transformers, step-down transformers, autotransformers, interconnection transformers, voltage regulator transformers, rectifier transformers, and power rectifier transformers.

    The LPTs subject to this Order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8504.23.0040, 8504.23.0080, and 8504.90.9540 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.

    Methodology

    We are conducting this CCR in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our analysis, see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.5

    5See Memorandum to 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, entitled “Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review Regarding Successor-In-Interest Analysis: Large Power Transformers from the Republic of Korea” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine that HEES is the successor-in-interest to HHI. Record evidence, as submitted by HHI and HEES (collectively, Hyundai), indicates that, based on the totality of the circumstances under Commerce's successor-in-interest criteria, HEES's day-to-day operations, corporate and management structure, and ownership are materially similar to those of HHI before the spin-off with respect to the merchandise under review. Moreover, we preliminarily find that HEES assumed HHI's production facilities, supplier relationships, and the customer base with regard to the merchandise under review. For the complete successor-in-interest analysis, including discussion of business proprietary information, refer to the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Therefore, based on record evidence, we preliminarily determine that as the successor-in-interest to HHI, HEES should receive the same antidumping duty treatment with respect to the subject merchandise as HHI, and that the rate assigned to HHI is the rate for HEES as a result of our successor-in-interest finding.

    Further, as a result of Hyundai's corporate reorganization, HEES has been entering subject merchandise at the lower all-others cash deposit rate as opposed to the cash deposit rate applicable to HHI. Because we preliminarily find that HEES is the successor-in-interest to HHI, we also preliminarily determine that, as a result of Hyundai's business decision to spin off HEES and for HEES to enter subject merchandise as the manufacturer and/or exporter, the efficacy of the Order is undermined, depriving the domestic industry of the full magnitude of the remedy via the payment of appropriate cash deposits applicable to HHI. Therefore, to maintain the effectiveness of the Order and to provide the adequate relief to the domestic industry, we preliminarily determine that the unique facts of this CCR warrant the retroactive application of the cash deposit rate to the effective date of the first entry by HEES. If we continue to reach the same determination at the final results of this CCR, we will instruct CBP to collect the cash deposits accordingly.

    Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. All comments are to be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) and must also be served on interested parties. Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b), 351.221(b) and 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Successor-In-Interest Determination V. Retroactive Application of HHI's Cash Deposit Rate to HEES VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-11713 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG229 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; five-year affirmative finding for El Salvador.

    SUMMARY:

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued a five-year affirmative finding for the Government of El Salvador under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding will allow importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) by purse seine vessels operating under Salvadoran jurisdiction or exported from El Salvador. NMFS bases the affirmative finding determination on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Government of El Salvador and by information obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

    DATES:

    This affirmative finding is effective for the five-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2023.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-980-3264. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows for importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State.

    The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the AIDCP and its obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every five years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS reviews the affirmative finding and determines whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with AIDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.

    An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the AIDCP.

    As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(8), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Government of El Salvador and obtained from the IATTC and has determined that El Salvador has met the MMPA's requirements to receive an affirmative finding.

    After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued a five-year affirmative finding to El Salvador, allowing the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels operating under Salvadoran jurisdiction or exported from El Salvador. Issuance of an affirmative finding for El Salvador does not affect implementation of an intermediary nation embargo under 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9), which could apply to exports from El Salvador. El Salvador's affirmative finding is effective for the five-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2023, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11655 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG169 Notice of Availability of a NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study Draft Report and Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study draft report; request for comments; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In planning for the future operational environmental satellite system to follow the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite System—R Series (GOES-R, S, T, and U) and the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS-1, 2, 3, and 4), beginning about 2028, NOAA has conducted a study of the NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture (NSOSA). The development of a future system presents an opportunity to design a modern architecture by broadly examining instruments, services, platforms, and orbits, driven by user needs, new technology, and exploiting emerging space business models. The NSOSA study team developed and evaluated nearly 100 architecture alternatives, including partner and commercial contributions that are likely to become available. Through https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NESDIS-2018-0053, the public can view the NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study draft report, submit ideas, review submissions from other parties, and make comments.

    All comments are welcome. In particular, NOAA would like comments on the following areas:

    Did NOAA consider a sufficiently broad range of alternatives?

    Are the opportunities that the analysis identified as deserving of consideration consistent with your knowledge of the state of the space enterprise?

    Are there outcomes or options that you recommend for further analysis?

    What suggestions do you have on engagement with industry, including innovative capability development approaches, partnership opportunities, and business models that may inform NOAA's path forward?

    What suggestions do you have on engagement with the academic and research community and other stakeholders to ensure NOAA makes the best use of the outputs of this study?

    NOAA previously discussed the NSOSA study at the American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting in January 2018; these presentations are available at https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Session/44459 and https://ams.confex.com/ams/98Annual/meetingapp.cgi/Session/44460. NOAA will continue to engage the public regarding NOAA's future satellite architecture planning. NOAA will use the results of this public comment period and public event to shape follow-on engagements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on July 2, 2018. A meeting will be held on June 21, 2018. For additional details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NESDIS-2018-0053, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NESDIS-2018-0053, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to: Office of System Architecture and Advance Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Room 5450, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring MD, 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Additional information as well as instructions on how to submit comments can be found at the following website: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NESDIS-2018-0053. The NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study report can also be viewed here.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Becker, NESDIS Office of System Architecture and Advance Planning (OSAAP), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Room 5450, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910. (Phone: 301-713-7049, [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NESDIS will hold a public event to discuss the NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture Study report on June 21, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. at the Silver Spring Civic Building, 1 Veterans Pl, Silver Spring, MD 20910. This Community Day will include a public session and the opportunity for one-on-one meetings with NESDIS. Further information and registration is available at https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/nesdis-community-engagements or by contacting OSAAP by mail, phone, or email as listed above (see ADDRESSES).

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Karen St. Germain, Director, Office of Systems Architecture and Advance Planning NOAA Satellite and Information Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11599 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; NOAA Satellite Ground Station Customer Questionnaire AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to James McNitt at 301-817-3842 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. NOAA asks people who operate ground receiving stations that receive data from NOAA satellites to complete a questionnaire about the types of data received, its use, the equipment involved, and similar subjects. Members of NOAA's Direct Broadcast User Groups are asked follow-up questions. The data obtained are used by NOAA for short-term operations and long-term planning. Collection of this data assists us in complying with the terms of our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the World Meteorological Organization: United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on area of common interest (2008).

    II. Method of Collection

    The information is collected via an online questionnaire.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0227.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households; federal government; state, local or tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in capital and recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11651 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG228 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; affirmative finding annual renewals for Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Spain.

    SUMMARY:

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued affirmative finding annual renewals for the Governments of Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Spain (referred to hereafter as “The Nations”) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These affirmative-finding, annual renewals will continue to allow the importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) by purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction or exported from The Nations. NMFS bases the affirmative finding annual renewals on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and by information obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

    DATES:

    These affirmative finding annual renewals are effective for the one-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-980-3264. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows for importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State.

    The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the AIDCP and its obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every five years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS reviews the affirmative finding and determines whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with AIDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.

    An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the AIDCP.

    As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f)(8), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and obtained from the IATTC and has determined that The Nations have met the MMPA's requirements to receive affirmative finding annual renewals.

    After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued affirmative finding annual renewals to The Nations, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction or exported from The Nations. Issuance of affirmative finding annual renewals for The Nations does not affect implementation of an intermediary nation embargo under 50 CFR 216.24(f)(9), which could apply to exports from The Nations. The affirmative finding annual renewals are for the one-year period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019.

    Peru's five-year affirmative finding will remain valid through March 31, 2022, and Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Spain's five-year affirmative findings will remain valid through March 31, 2020, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11654 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Permits for Incidental Taking of Endangered or Threatened Species.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0230.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 48.

    Average Hours per Response: 80 hours for a permit application (including Habitat Conservation Plans), 40 minutes for transfer of an incidental take permit; 8 hours for a permit report, 30 minutes for a Certificate of Inclusion and 10 hours for a watershed plan.

    Burden Hours: 795.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) imposed prohibitions against the taking of endangered species. In 1982, Congress revised the ESA to allow permits authorizing the taking of endangered species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The corresponding regulations (50 CFR part 222.222) established procedures for persons to apply for such a permit. In addition, the regulations set forth specific reporting requirements for such permit holders.

    The regulations contain three sets of information collections: (l) Applications for incidental take permits, (2) applications for certificates of inclusion, and (3) reporting requirements for permits issued. Certificates of inclusion are only required if a general permit is issued to a representative of a group of potential permit applicants, rather than requiring each entity to apply for and receive a permit.

    The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions.

    When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Secretary to issue whatever regulations are deemed necessary or advisable to provide for conservation of the species. In many cases those regulations reflect blanket application of the section 9 take prohibition. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recognizes certain exceptions to that prohibition, including habitat restoration actions taken in accord with approved state watershed action plans. While watershed plans are prepared for other purposes in coordination with or fulfillment of various state programs, a watershed group wishing to take advantage of the exception for restoration activities (rather than obtaining a section 10 permit) would have to submit the plan for NMFS review.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.

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

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11626 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF603 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; proposed revised incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from Venoco, LLC, (Venoco) and Chevron USA, Inc., (Chevron) to transfer, from Venoco to Chevron, a Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) one-year Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to the Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement Project, following the sale of Casitas Pier to Chevron. No other changes are proposed. NMFS is inviting comments on the proposed transfer of the Casitas Pier IHA to Chevron.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to [email protected]

    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. Comments received electronically, including all attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111 without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Young, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of Venoco's original IHA, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

    Summary of Request

    On October 27, 2017, NMFS issued an IHA to Venoco to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to the Casitas Pier Fender Pile Replacement Project, effective from November 1, 2017, through October 31, 2018 (82 FR 55579). On January 1, 2018, Chevron succeeded Venoco as the owner and operator of Carpinteria Gas Plant, including Casitas Pier.

    Chevron subsequently submitted a written request to transfer the current IHA from Venoco to Chevron. With the transfer of the Casitas Pier IHA, Chevron agrees to comply with the associated terms, conditions, stipulations, and restrictions of the original Casitas Pier IHA. No other changes were requested. The revised IHA, if issued, would remain effective through October 31, 2018.

    This Federal Register notice sets forth only a proposed change in the Casitas Pier IHA holder's name. There are no other changes to the current IHA as described in the November 22, 2017, Federal Register notice of a final IHA (82 FR 55579): The specified activity; description of marine mammals in the area of the specified activity; potential effects on marine mammals and their habitat; mitigation and related monitoring used to implement mitigation; reporting; estimated take by incidental harassment; negligible impact and small numbers analyses and determinations; impact on availability of affected species or stocks for subsistence uses and the period of effectiveness remain unchanged and are herein incorporated by reference.

    Proposed Revisions to the Casitas Pier IHA

    NMFS is proposing a change in the name of the holder of the Casitas Pier IHA from “Venoco, LLC” to “Chevron USA, Inc”.

    Request for Public Comments

    NMFS invites comment on the proposed change to the current IHA. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on Venoco and Chevron's request for transfer of the Casitas Pier authorization.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11660 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Fisheries Finance Program Requirements.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0012.

    Form Number(s): NOAA Form 88-1.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 311.

    Average Hours per Response: Applications, 10 hours; annual financial statements, 2 hours.

    Burden Hours: 1,102.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates a direct loan program to assist in financing certain actions relating to commercial fishing vessels, shoreside fishery facilities, aquaculture operations, and individual fishing quotas. Application information is required to determine eligibility pursuant to 50 CFR part 253 and to determine the type and amount of assistance requested by the applicant. An annual financial statement is required from the recipients to monitor the financial status of the loan.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.

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

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11650 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG241 Marine Mammals; File No. 21856 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that ABR, Inc. Environmental Research and Services, P.O. Box 80410, Fairbanks, AK 99708, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on 12 species of marine mammals.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 21856 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Young or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

    The applicant proposes to conduct unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and manned aerial surveys in Kamishak Bay, Alaska to collect baseline seasonal abundance and distribution data on marine mammals. The applicant proposes to take marine mammals during aerial surveys for behavioral observations, photography, counts, and videography. The applicant requests the annual take of 12 species: 1,050 endangered Western DPS Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), 150 endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), 10,139 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), 600 harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), 150 Dall's porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli), 130 minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), 60 eastern North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), 130 killer whales (Orcinus orca), 15 northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), 25 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), 40 endangered fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), 150 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) from the endangered Western North Pacific DPS, threatened Mexico DPS, or Hawaii DPS, and two endangered North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica). The permit would be valid for five years from the date of issuance.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11640 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings TIME AND DATE:

    9:30 a.m., Monday, June 4, 2018.

    PLACE:

    CFTC Headquarters, Lobby-Level Hearing Room, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:

    • Final Rule making Amendments to the Swap Data Access Provisions of Part 49 and Certain Other Matters;

    • Proposed Rule on Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds (Volcker Rule);

    • Proposed Rule on Amendments to Swap Dealer Registration De Minimis Exception; and

    • Establishment of Subcommittees for the CFTC Technology Advisory Committee.

    The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the Commission's website at https://www.cftc.gov. In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of the meeting, will be posted on the Commission's website.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11764 Filed 5-29-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-Test Assessment Questions; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Application Package for Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-test Assessment Questions for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through regulations.gov. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comment that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Greg Wallinger at 202-606-7571 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

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

    • 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;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose 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

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on Monday, March 12, 2018 on page 10714. This comment period ended May 11, 2018. Zero public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has procured a Learning Management System (LMS) to enhance training and technical assistance at the agency. The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) is using this tool to enhance existing methods of teaching and learning about program evaluation and research topics. ORE has programmed 12 Evaluation Core Curriculum courses on the LMS for users to explore interactively. In order to enhance the utility of the courses, ORE would like implement “knowledge checks” in the form of topically focused pre/post-test questions so that participants can identify knowledge gaps that need to be addressed with further learning. This will also enable ORE to see where common learning issues arise, and where additional resources should be targeted. CNCS also seeks to continue using the currently approved pre/post-test questions, which were cleared under a generic clearance, until the current information collection is approved by OMB. The currently approved information collection expired on October, 31, 2017.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on regulations.gov.

    CNCS seeks to renew the current information. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on October, 31, 2017.

    Title of Collection: Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-test Assessment Questions.

    OMB Control Number: [TBD].

    Type of Review: New.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Corporation for National and Community Service grantees.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 100.

    Total Estimated Annual Frequency: 12.

    Total Estimated Average Response Time per Response: 5 minutes per course; 12 courses in total = 60 minutes or 1 hour maximum across all courses.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours; 60 minutes × 100 respondents (max.) = 6000 minutes or 100 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: May 9, 2018. Mary Hyde, Director of the Office of Research and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11616 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2018-OS-0030] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24 Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to National Security Education Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F09-02, Alexandria, VA 22350-7000 or call 576-256-0711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: National Security Education Program (NSEP) Service Agreement Report for Scholarship and Fellowship Awards; DD Form 2752 and DD Form 2753; OMB Control Number 0704-0368.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to record the original award amount and service requirement for each NSEP award recipient (DD Form 2752) and the progress of each NSEP award recipient in fulfilling his/her Congressionally-mandated service requirement signed at the time of award (DD Form 2753).

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Not-for-Profit Institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 275.

    Number of Respondents: 1,650.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,650.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondents are undergraduate and graduate students who agree to the terms of their award (DD Form 2752) and who agree upon receipt of award to submit the Service Agreement Report (DD Form 2753) annually until their service requirement is completed in full. Through a cooperative agreement, the Institute of International Education acts as the administrative agent for these scholarship, fellowship, and grant programs and certifies the information provided on the two forms. The information is used to monitor the progress of award recipients as they fulfill their service obligation, namely, to work in positions related to national security.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11602 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0030] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance To Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII).

    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 July 2, 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-0030. 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 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Patricia Kilby-Robb, 202-260-2225.

    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: Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance to Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0016.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 102.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 136.

    Abstract: This request is for an extension of OMB approval to collect data for the Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Program: Technical Assistance to Support Monitoring, Evaluation, Data Collection, and Dissemination of Best Practices formerly titled Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grant Awards Database. This current data collection is being coordinated with the EDFacts Initiative to reduce respondent burden and fully utilize data submitted by States and available to the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Specifically, under the current data collection, ED collects CSP grant award information from grantees (State agencies, charter management organizations, and some schools) to create a new database of current CSP-funded charter schools. Together, these data allow ED to monitor CSP grant performance and analyze data related to accountability for academic purposes, financial integrity, and program effectiveness.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11734 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Idaho Cleanup Project AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Open Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, June 21, 2018, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

    The opportunities for public comment are at 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

    This time is subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    Residence Inn Idaho Falls, 635 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, ID 83402.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Bugger, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1203, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415. Phone (208) 526-0833; or email: [email protected] or visit the Board's internet home page at: https://energy.gov/em/icpcab/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Brad Bugger for the most current agenda):

    • Introduction of New Board Members • Recent Public Outreach • Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) Overview • Update on Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) Cap Design • Update on Accelerated Retrieval Project (ARP) V Drum Event • Update on Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU) • History and Current Status of Test Area North (TAN) Cleanup • Report on EM SSAB Chairs Meeting • Board Discussion on Budget Recommendation

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Idaho Cleanup Project, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Brad Bugger at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral presentations pertaining to agenda items should contact Brad Bugger at the address or telephone number listed above. The request must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Brad Bugger, Federal Coordinator, at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: https://energy.gov/em/icpcab/listings/cab-meetings.

    Issued at Washington, DC on May 25, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11715 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Open Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, June 21, 2018, 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    West Kentucky Community and Technical College, Emerging Technology Center, 5100 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Administrative Issues • Public Comments (15 minutes) • Adjourn Breaks Taken As Appropriate

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Paducah, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jennifer Woodard as soon as possible in advance of the meeting at the telephone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Jennifer Woodard at the telephone number listed above. Requests must be received as soon as possible prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. The EM SSAB, Paducah, will hear public comments pertaining to its scope (clean-up standards and environmental restoration; waste management and disposition; stabilization and disposition of non-stockpile nuclear materials; excess facilities; future land use and long-term stewardship; risk assessment and management; and clean-up science and technology activities). Comments outside of the scope may be submitted via written statement as directed above.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Jennifer Woodard at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website: https://www.energy.gov/pppo/pgdp-cab/listings/meeting-materials.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on May 24, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11709 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice—252] Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 25, 2018, Birdsboro Power LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE). The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 25, 2018, Birdsboro Power LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d)(1) and 10 CFR 501.61(c). Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new baseload powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to the FUA, in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), prior to construction or prior to operation as a baseload powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

    Owner: Birdsboro Power LLC Capacity: 525 megawatts (MW) Plant Location: Birdsboro, Berks County, PA In-Service Date: Expected in approximately April 2019 Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2018. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11701 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-486-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 18, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), on behalf of itself, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC and Northern Natural Gas Company (collectively, the Joint Owners), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP18-486-000, a joint application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to abandon a supply lateral and related facilities located in offshore federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana. Specifically, the Joint Owners propose to (i) abandon in place about 12.0 miles of a 16-inch diameter offshore supply lateral, designated as Line 41-A-8; (ii) abandon receipt point numbers 73674 and 71710; and (iii) abandon by removal all related appurtenant facilities. The Joint Owners state that the facilities proposed for abandonment are not required to meet current firm service obligations, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public 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 A. Connolly, Director, Rates & Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or telephone (713) 627-4102, or fax (713) 627-5947 or by email [email protected]

    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 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 EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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.

    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 14, 2018.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11638 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-18-000] Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gateway Expansion Project; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C.

    On November 15, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C. (Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-18-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Gateway Expansion Project (Project), and it would increase the firm transportation capacity of Transco's existing pipeline system by 65,000 dekatherms per day and enable Transco to provide customers with an incremental service of natural gas during high demand periods.

    On November 30, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA, July 17, 2018.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline, October 15, 2018.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    Transco's Project would require modifications at the existing facilities in the following counties of New Jersey:

    Essex County Compressor Station 303

    • Expansion of the building and installation of a 33,000 horsepower electric-motor driven compression unit and ancillary equipment; and

    • extension of security fencing and access to new equipment.

    Roseland Meter and Regulator

    • Installation of a 36-inch Main Line block valve with automation controls.

    Roseland Electric Substation

    • Installation of an electric transformer unit.

    Passaic County Paterson Meter and Regulator

    • Replacing the existing 12-inch headers with two new 6-inch ultrasonic meter skids and associated equipment; and

    • installation of ancillary equipment.

    Background

    On January 2, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gateway Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners within 0.5 mile of the existing facilities; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, two local community groups (350 Rockland, Roseland Against the Compressor Station), and several individual stakeholder comments. The primary issues raised by the commenters are concerns over health impacts from compressor station emissions; safety concerns including leaks, rupture, and emergency responder training; concerns that the Project would result in contaminant impacts on the nearby wetlands, wildlife, and soils; as well as concerns on cumulative impacts. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-18), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11636 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-485-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 17, 2018, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP on behalf of itself and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (collectively, the Majority Joint Owners); P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP18-485-000, a joint application, pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, to abandon a gathering lateral and related facilities located in offshore federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana. Specifically, the Majority Joint Owners propose to (i) abandon in place about 20.5 miles of a 12-inch diameter offshore gathering lateral, designated as Line 41-A-5-B; (ii) abandon the metering and regulating station number 72135, receipt point 73646, and delivery point 73702; and (iii) abandon by removal all related appurtenant facilities. The Majority Joint Owners state that the facilities proposed for abandonment are not required to meet current firm service obligations, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public 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 A. Connolly, Director, Rates & Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or telephone (713) 627-4102, or fax (713) 627-5947 or by email [email protected]

    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 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 EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    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 commentors 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 commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors 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.

    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: June 14, 2018.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11637 Filed 5-30-18; 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 Number: PR18-50-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: CMD SOC Rates effective May 1 2018.

    Filed Date: 5/18/18.

    Accession Number: 201805185123.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-51-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective May 1 2018.

    Filed Date: 5/18/18.

    Accession Number: 201805185125.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-833-000.

    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Annual Cashout True-up 2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-834-000.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Penalty Charge Reconciliation Filing of Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5306.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-835-000.

    Applicants: Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Sabal Trail tariff modifications to be effective 6/22/2019.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5117.

    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 date(s). 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 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11685 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-154-000] New England Power Generators Association v. ISO New England Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 23, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, New England Power Generators Association (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ISO New England Inc. (Respondent) alleging that Respondent decision to treat generators held for fuel security as price-takers in the capacity auction is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    New England Power Generators Association certifies that copies of the complaint were served on contacts for ISO New England Inc. as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    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 and 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. The Respondents' answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.

    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 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 6, 2018.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11687 Filed 5-30-18; 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: ER11-3460-011; ER10-1533-017; ER12-1301-009.

    Applicants: Bayonne Energy Center, LLC, Macquarie Energy LLC, Zone J Tolling Co., LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Bayonne Energy Center, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    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: ER18-1264-002.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Filing & Renewed Request for Expedited Action to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/29/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1674-000.

    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Petition for Waiver and Request for Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Action of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5301.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1679-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5094; Queue No. AD1-048 to be effective 5/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1680-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3112R1 WAPA—UGP Marketing Meter Agent Agreement to be effective 5/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5010.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    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 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11683 Filed 5-30-18; 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: ER18-230-003.

    Applicants: Gilroy Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Gilroy Compliance Filing—Part 1 to be effective 4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-230-004.

    Applicants: Gilroy Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Gilroy Compliance Filing—Part 2 to be effective 4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-240-003.

    Applicants: Metcalf Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Metcalf Compliance Filing Part 1 to be effective 4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-240-004.

    Applicants: Metcalf Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Metcalf Compliance Filing Part 2 to be effective 4/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1210-001.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Revised and Restated Prescott PSA to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1222-001.

    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Filing in Docket No. ER18-1222-00 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1402-001.

    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 204 to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1471-001.

    Applicants: ACT Commodities, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended MBR Application to be effective 5/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-5250.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1681-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA, SA No. 4515; Queue No. AB1-174 to be effective 6/26/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1682-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Second Amended CLGIA & DSA RE Columbia Project SA Nos. 531-532 to be effective 7/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1683-000.

    Applicants: Evergreen Community Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based tariff, et al. of Evergreen Community Power, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    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 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11684 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-153-000] GlidePath Power Solutions LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 22, 2018, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act 1 and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,2 GlidePath Power Solutions LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent) alleging that the Respondent violated its Open Access Transmission Tariff in terminating an interconnection service request submitted on behalf of Complainant's affiliate, Energy Mountain LLC, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e.

    2 18 CFR 385.206

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts list for Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    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 21, 2018.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11686 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0010; FRL-9977-76] Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions, and State agencies have declared crisis exemptions, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for the use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted or declared during the period of October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 to control emergency pest outbreaks.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0010, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.

    Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:

    1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.

    2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.

    3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.

    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.

    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    In this document, EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the target pests, the crop or use for which the pesticide was authorized, number of acres that could potentially be treated under the authorization (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if any.

    III. Emergency Exemptions A. U.S. States and Territories Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of the insecticide sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 45,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 75,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    Arkansas State Plant Board

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); March 16, 2018 to September 15, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 420,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of the insecticide flupyradifurone on a maximum of 200 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b); Effective June 1, 2018 to November 15, 2018.

    California Department of Pesticide Regulation

    Quarantine exemptions: EPA authorized the uses of the antibiotics streptomycin and oxytetracycline on a maximum of 23,000 acres of citrus to manage Huanglongbing (HLB), also called citrus greening disease, caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter Asiaticus. Time-limited tolerances in connection with these actions have been established at 40 CFR 180.337(b) (oxytetracycline) and 180.245(b) (streptomycin). Effective February 23, 2018 to February 23, 2019.

    Colorado Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 500,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective March 14, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

    Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of the insecticide clothianidin on a maximum of 125,376 acres of immature (3 to 5 years old) citrus trees to manage the transmission of Huanglongbing (HLB) disease vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action was established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of streptomycin and oxytetracycline on a maximum of 330,254 acres of citrus to manage HLB or citrus greening disease caused by the bacteria, Candidatus Liberibacter Asiaticus. Time-limited tolerances in connection with these actions have been established at 40 CFR 180.337(b) (oxytetracycline) and 180.245(b) (streptomycin). Effective January 17, 2018 to December 31, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of the insecticide tolfenpyrad on a maximum of 51,600 acres of fruiting vegetables to control various thrips. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.675(b); Effective March 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019.

    Georgia Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective May 1, 2018 to December 1, 2018.

    Idaho Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of the herbicide pyridate on a maximum of 9,500 acres of mint for postemergence control of herbicide-resistant annual weeds such as redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus and other broadleaf weeds. Tolerances in connection with an earlier registration action are established in 40 CFR 180.462(a). June 20, 2018 to August 10, 2018.

    Kansas Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 2,850,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective March 14, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

    Louisiana Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 180,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 115,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective May 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 750,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    Missouri Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 85,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective March 30, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 241,500 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 8,100 acres of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective October 16, 2017 to October 31, 2017.

    North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of the fungicide thiabendazole for postharvest use on 95,000 acres of sweet potatoes to control black rot disease. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.680(b); Effective March 12, 2018 to March 12, 2019.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective March 14, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

    Oregon Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyridate on a maximum of 5,200 acres of mint for postemergence control of herbicide-resistant annual weeds such as redroot pigweed, Armaranthus retroflexus and other broadleaf weeds. Tolerances in connection with an earlier registration action are established in 40 CFR 180.462(a). Effective June 20, 2018 to August 10, 2018.

    Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of the insecticide etofenprox for use in mushroom cultivation on up to 16 million square feet (equivalent to 2,000 mushroom houses) to control Sciarid and Phorid fly species. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.620(a), to cover any residues as a result of this emergency exemption use; Effective December 20, 2017 to December 20, 2018.

    Puerto Rico Department of Health

    Crisis exemption: On October 8, 2017 the Puerto Rico Department of Health declared a crisis exemption for use of sodium dichloroisocyanurate for treatment by the general public of drinking water to control microbes. The use season is expected to last year-round and a public health exemption request was also submitted, allowing the use to continue until EPA's decision on the request.

    Public health exemption: EPA authorized the use of sodium dichloroisocyanurate for treatment by the general public of drinking water to control microbes. Effective January 2, 2018 to January 2, 2019.

    Tennessee Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 285,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a); Effective June 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 750 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 1, 2018 to November 15, 2018.

    Texas Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of tolfenpyrad on a maximum of 10,000 acres of dry bulb onions to control thrips (Thrips tabaci). A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.675(b). Effective January 11, 2018 to July 10, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 5,500,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bugs. Tolerances in connection with a previous action have been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a). Effective March 1, 2018 to October 31, 2018.

    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 3,000,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective April 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

    Washington Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of pyridate on a maximum of 16,000 acres of mint for postemergence control of herbicide-resistant annual weeds such as redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus and other broadleaf weeds. Tolerances in connection with an earlier registration action are established in 40 CFR 180.462(a). Effective May 21, 2018 to August 31, 2018.

    Wyoming Department of Agriculture

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of the herbicide indaziflam on a maximum of 300,000 acres of rangeland, pastures, and Conservation Reserve Program to control medusahead and ventenata. Time-limited tolerances in connection with this action will be established in 40 CFR 180.653(b). Effective September 14, 2017 to September 14, 2018.

    B. Federal Departments and Agencies

    EPA did not authorize any emergency exemptions to any Federal agencies during the time period of October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 21, 2018. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11751 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9978-52—Region 9] Public Water System Supervision Program; Supplemental Primary Enforcement Responsibility Approval for the Navajo Nation AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of tentative approval.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has determined that the Navajo Nation meets the requirements under Section 1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) and the corresponding regulations for the purpose of the Navajo Nation being eligible to administer its previously approved Public Water System Supervision (“PWSS”) Program under the SDWA in an additional area of the Navajo Reservation and for additional public water systems on tribal trust land in the Eastern Navajo Agency. Notice is also hereby given that the EPA has determined that the Navajo Nation has met the requirements under the SDWA regulations for primary enforcement responsibility (“primacy”) and therefore intends to approve the Navajo Nation's revision to its PWSS Program to include the new area and water systems.

    DATES:

    Requests for a public hearing must be received on or before June 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Information relating to EPA's tribal eligibility and primacy determinations are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except official Federal and Navajo holidays, at the following offices: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, PWSS Program, Old Museum Building (Building W008-042 on the Fair Grounds), P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona 86515; and EPA, Region 9, Water Division, Drinking Water Management Section (WTR-3-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bessie Lee, EPA Region 9, Water Division, Drinking Water Management Section, at the address given above; telephone number (415) 972-3776; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background. On October 23, 2000, EPA first determined that the Navajo Nation had satisfied the requirements of Section 1451 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j-11, and EPA's regulations, 40 CFR 142.72 through 142.78, and was therefore eligible to obtain primacy for its PWSS Program under Section 1413 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g-2, and EPA's regulations, 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11, for (a) all public water systems within the boundaries of the formal Navajo Reservation (except for the systems located in the former Bennett Freeze area and a small number of other public water systems expressly excluded from the eligibility determination), (b) all public water systems within the three formal Satellite Navajo Reservations of Alamo, Canoncito, and Ramah, and (c) specific identified public water systems on tribal trust land in the Eastern Navajo Agency. The Navajo Nation had omitted the former Bennett Freeze area from its initial PWSS Program application due to ongoing litigation with the Hopi Tribe regarding jurisdictional control of the area. That litigation was resolved in Honyoama v. Shirley, No. 2:74-CIV-842 (D. Ariz.) (Order and final judgment, December 4, 2006, approving and incorporating the terms of the Navajo Nation-Hopi Tribe Intergovernmental Compact and establishing that the former Bennett Freeze lands are within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Nation Reservation).

    On December 4, 2014, the Navajo Nation applied to supplement its approved PWSS Program to cover the additional area within the Western Navajo Agency of the Navajo Reservation (which covers the former Bennett Freeze lands) and two water systems located on tribal trust land within the Eastern Navajo Agency that had been excluded from the original primacy eligibility determination (namely, the Standing Rock Community School-BIA and the Thoreau High School water systems). The Navajo Nation later requested that EPA not make any determination in regard to the Cameron Trading Post water system, which is located on nonmember fee land within the Western Navajo Agency, and therefore EPA's determinations do not include this system.

    On March 22, 2018, as outlined in its decision document, EPA determined that the Navajo Nation meets the following requirements of Section 1451 of SDWA and 40 CFR 142.72 and 142.76 for purposes of eligibility to administer supplemental primacy for the additional area and water systems:

    (a) The Indian Tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior.

    (b) The Indian Tribe has a tribal governing body which is currently “carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers” over a defined area (i.e., is currently performing governmental functions to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the affected population within a defined geographic area).

    (c) The Indian Tribe demonstrates that the functions to be performed in regulating the public water systems that the applicant intends to regulate are within the area of the Indian Tribal government's jurisdiction.

    (d) The Indian Tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, in the Administrator's judgment, of administering (in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the Act and all applicable regulations) an effective Public Water System program.

    On May 31, 2018, EPA also determined that the Tribe meets the requirements for primacy under the Section 1413 of SDWA and 40 CFR part 142, subpart B, for the additional area and systems. In its original approval of the Navajo Nation's primacy program, EPA had determined that the PWSS Program met all of the requirements of 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11 for primacy for public water systems within the Navajo Nation Reservation. Therefore, EPA has determined that the Navajo Nation's previously approved PWSS Program meets the requirements for primacy under 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11 with respect to the new area and water systems. Upon the effective date of the primacy approval, the Navajo Nation will have 12 additional public water systems subject to its jurisdiction.

    In sum, EPA has concluded that:

    1. The Navajo Nation meets the requirements of Section 1451 of SDWA and 40 CFR 142.72 through 142.78 and is therefore eligible for primacy for the additional area and water systems included in EPA's determinations, and

    2. The Navajo Nation meets all of the primacy requirements of 40 CFR 142.10 and 142.11 with respect to the additional areas and water systems included in EPA's determinations.

    Public Process. Under 40 CFR 142.13, any interested person, other than a federal agency, may request a public hearing on these determinations. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by June 25, 2018, to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 9 address shown above. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing. If a valid request for a public hearing is made by June 25, 2018, EPA Region 9 will hold a public hearing. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing;

    2. A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determinations and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and 3. The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    Under 40 CFR 142.13(g), if EPA Region 9 does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his or her own motion, these determinations shall become final and effective on June 25, 2018, and no further public notice will be issued. EPA Region 9 will provide public notice of any public hearing held pursuant to a request submitted by an interested person or on EPA's own motion. If a public hearing is held, EPA Region 9 will issue an order either affirming or rescinding the determination. If EPA Region 9 affirms the determination, it will become effective as of the date of the order. 40 CFR 142.13(f).

    Authority:

    Sections 1413 and 1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 300g-2 and 311j-11; and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.11, 142.13, and 142.72 through 142.78

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 9.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11320 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1182 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1184; FRL9978-86-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request on Two Proposed Information Collection Requests AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit the two information collection requests (ICRs) listed in this notice 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 collections as described below. This is a proposed extension of the two ICRs, which are currently approved through July 31, 2018 and August 31, 2018, as specified for each item in the text below. 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 specified under each item below, 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:

    Ms. Nydia Y. Reyes-Morales, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 6405A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9264; 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, EPA 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, 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. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR 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 ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    ICR #1: “Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Compression-ignition Engines and On-highway Heavy Duty Engines (Revision to an existing package),” (EPA ICR No. 1684.20, OMB Control No. 2060-0287) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1182

    Abstract: For this ICR, EPA is seeking a revision to an existing package with a three-year extension. The previous ICR 1684.18 covers certification and compliance requirements for the following industries: Nonroad (NR) compression-ignition (CI) engines and equipment, marine CI engines in Categories 1 and 2; and heavy-duty (HD) engines. In this revision, we are incorporating the following ICRs into ICR 1684.20, either in whole or in part as shown in Table 1, to eliminate redundancy and avoid duplication.

    Table 1—List of ICRs Consolidated Into ICR 1684.20 ICR information Industries covered Reason for consolidation Consolidated portion Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder, EPA No. 2345.03; OMB No. 2060-0641; expiring March 31, 2020 Category 3 Marine Engines Categories 1 & 2 are already included in 1684 Incorporated in its entirety. Engine Emission Defect Information Reports and Voluntary Emission Recall Reports, EPA No. 0282.17; OMB No. 2060-0048; expiring on November 30, 2020 All heavy-duty, spark ignition and compression ignition engines Defect reporting stems from certification; same respondents as 1684 Portion related to HD and NR compression ignition industries only. Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines, EPA No. 1800.07; OMB No. 2060-0392; expiring July 31, 2018 (in process) Locomotives, locomotive engines and remanufacturing kits Same programs as those already included in 1684. Some of the same respondents Incorporated in its entirety. Certification and Compliance Requirements for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, EPA No. 2394.03; OMB No. 2060-0678; expiring on April 30, 2018 (in process) Medium-heavy duty engines and vehicles Certification programs for HD engines already in 1684. Some of the same respondents Incorporated in its entirety.

    With this consolidation, we are combining all certification and compliance burden associated with the heavy-duty and nonroad compression-ignition engine, equipment and vehicle industries under a single ICR. Under the locomotive and marine CI Category 3 ICRs, manufacturers submit certification applications and compliance data in the same manner (and responding to very similar requirements) as described in ICR 1684. In fact, ICR 1684 already covers Marine CI Categories 1 and 2 engines. ICR 2394.03 covers the incremental burden associated with adding greenhouse gas and fuel economy data to a previously existing certification application process covered under ICR 1684. The Defects and Recalls ICR covers the defect reporting and voluntary recalls for HD, CI and spark-ignition engines; a process that stems from the certification requirements covered in ICR 1684. Many companies respond to two or more of these collections.

    Title II of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.; CAA), charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with issuing certificates of conformity for those engines and vehicles that comply with applicable emission requirements. Such a certificate must be issued before those products may be legally introduced into commerce. To apply for a certificate of conformity, manufacturers are required to submit descriptions of their planned production, detailed descriptions of emission control systems and test data. This information is organized by “families,” groups of engines/vehicles expected to have similar emission characteristics.

    The emission values achieved during certification testing may also be used in the Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) Program. The program allows engine manufacturers to bank credits for engine families that emit below the standard and use the credits to certify engine families that emit above the standard. They may also trade banked credits with other manufacturers. Participation in the ABT program is voluntary.

    The CAA also mandates EPA to verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines; and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives. EPA verifies this through `Compliance Programs' which include Production Line Testing (PLT), In-use Testing and Selective Enforcement Audits, (SEAs). Not all programs apply to all industries included in this ICR. PLT, which only applies to marine engines, is a self-audit program that allows engine manufacturers to monitor their products' emissions profile with statistical certainty and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. In-use testing allows manufacturers and EPA to verify compliance with emission standards throughout an engine family's useful life. Through SEAs, EPA verifies that test data submitted by engine manufacturers is reliable and testing is performed according to EPA regulations.

    Under the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM), NRCI equipment manufacturers may delay compliance with Tier 4 standards for up to seven years as long as they comply with certain limitations. The program seeks to ease the impact of new emission standards on equipment manufacturers as they often need to redesign their products to accommodate changes in engine design. Participation in the program is voluntary.

    There are varying recordkeeping and labeling requirements under all programs.

    The information requested is collected by the Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA. CD uses this information to issue certificates of conformity and ensure that manufacturers comply with applicable regulations and the CAA. Some HD data is also used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to implement their programs under 49 U.S.C. 32902. EPA's and NHTSA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice may use the information for enforcement purposes. Most of the information is collected in electronic format and stored in CD's databases.

    Manufacturers may assert a claim of confidentiality over information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2. Non-confidential information may be disclosed on OTAQ's website or upon request under the Freedom of Information Act to trade associations, environmental groups, and the public.

    Form Numbers: See Table 2.

    Table 2—Forms Related to ICR 1684.20 Form No. HD/NR Engine Manufacturer Annual Production Report 5900-90. AB&T Report for Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines 5900-125. AB&T Report for Heavy-duty On-highway Engines 5900-134. AB&T Report for Locomotives 5900-274. AB&T Report for Marine Compression-ignition Engines 5900-125. PLT Report for Marine CI CumSum 5900-297. PLT Report for Marine CI Non-CumSum 5900-298. PLT Report for Locomotives 5900-135. Locomotive Installation Audit Report 5900-273. In-use Testing for Locomotives 5900-93. In-use Testing for Non-Road Engines 5900-93. Replacement Engine Exemption Report 6900-5414. TPEM Equipment Manufacturer Notification 5900-242. TPEM Equipment Manufacturer Report 5900-240. TPEM Engine Manufacturer Report 5900-241. TPEM Importers Notification In process. TPEM Importers Annual Report In process. TPEM Bond Worksheet 5900-239. TPEM Hardship Relief Application Questionnaire 5900-465. TPEM Hardship Relief Prescreening Questionnaire 6900-02.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are manufacturers of engines, equipment and vehicles in the nonroad compression ignition (CI), marine CI, locomotives and medium- and heavy-duty on-highway industries. There are some requirements for marine CI vessel owners and operators and owners of HD truck fleets.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Regulated manufacturers must respond to this collection if they wish to sell their products in the U.S., as prescribed by Section 206(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521). Participation in some programs such as ABT and TPEM is voluntary, but once a manufacturer has elected to participate, it must submit the required information.

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,823 (total).

    Frequency of response: Quarterly, Annually, On Occasion, depending on the type of response.

    Total estimated burden: 167,333 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $31,192,402 (per year), includes an estimated $18,976,585 annualized capital or maintenance and operational costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: Despite the consolidation of 4 other ICRs into this collection, there is a preliminary decrease of 33,701 hours in the total estimated burden for ICR 1684.20 from the burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is mainly due to (1) the end of most of TPEM and a sharp decrease in participants in the last years of the program; (2) a net decrease in the number of engine families in some industries/programs; and (3) respondents' heavy reliance on carry-over testing data. These estimates are subject to change as EPA evaluates additional information. The ICRs incorporated into this ICR will be discontinued or reduced after ICR 1684.20 is approved, significantly reducing the overall burden for these industries in OMB's Inventory of Approved Collections.

    ICR #2: “Emissions Certification and Compliance Requirements for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines (Renewal),” (EPA ICR No. 1800.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0392) Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1184

    Abstract: For this ICR, EPA is seeking a revision to an existing package with a three-year extension or until ICR 1684.20 is approved, whichever comes first. Since this ICR's burden is being consolidated into ICR 1684.20 (see previous ICR in this notice), this collection will be discontinued upon ICR 1684.20's approval to avoid duplicity.

    Title II of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.; CAA), charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with issuing certificates of conformity for those engines that comply with applicable emission standards. Such a certificate must be issued before engines may be legally introduced into commerce. Under this ICR, EPA collects information necessary to issue certificates of compliance with emission standards and verify compliance with various programs and regulatory provisions pertaining to locomotives, locomotive engines, and locomotive remanufacturing kits (collectively referred to here as “engines” for simplicity). To apply for a certificate of conformity, manufacturers are required to submit descriptions of their planned production engines, including detailed descriptions of emission control systems and test data. This information is organized by “engine family” groups expected to have similar emission characteristics. Those manufacturers electing to participate in the Averaging, Banking and Trading (AB&T) Program are also required to submit information regarding the calculation, actual generation and usage of credits.

    The Act also mandates EPA to verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines, and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives. Under the Production Line Testing Program (“PLT Program”), manufacturers are required to test a sample of engines as they leave the assembly line. This self-audit program allows manufacturers to monitor compliance with statistical certainty and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. A similar audit program exists for the installation of locomotive remanufacturing kits. In-use testing allows manufacturers and EPA to verify compliance with emission standards throughout the locomotive's useful life. Through Selected Enforcement Audits, (SEAs), EPA verifies that test data submitted by engine manufacturers is reliable and testing is performed according to EPA regulations.

    There are varying recordkeeping and labeling requirements under all programs.

    The information requested is collected by the Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation; and processed by the Diesel Engine Compliance Center (DECC). DECC uses this information to issue certificates of conformity and ensure compliance with applicable regulations and the CAA. The information may also be used by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes. Most of the information is collected in electronic format and stored in CD's databases.

    Manufacturers may assert a claim of confidentiality over information provided to EPA. Confidentiality is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2. Non-confidential information may be disclosed on OTAQ's website or upon request under the Freedom of Information Act to trade associations, environmental groups, and the public.

    Form Numbers: 5900-274 (ABT Report); 5900-135 (PLT Report), 5900-273 (Installation Audit Report), 5900-90 (Annual Production Report); and 5900-93 (In-use Testing Report).

    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are manufacturers of locomotives, locomotive engines and locomotive remanufacturing kits.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Regulated manufacturers must respond to this collection if they wish to sell their products in the U.S., as prescribed by Section 206(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521). Participation in ABT is voluntary, but once a manufacturer has elected to participate, it must submit the required information.

    Estimated number of respondents: 16 (total).

    Frequency of response: Quarterly, Annually, On Occasion, depending on the program.

    Total estimated burden: 21,544 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,862,117 (per year), includes $1,303,236 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: To date, there are no changes in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. However, EPA is evaluating information that may lead to a change in the estimates.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11756 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0014; FRL-9976-99] Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations and amendments to terminate uses, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of Unit II, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows an March 6, 2018 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 3 of Unit II to voluntarily cancel and amend to terminate uses of these product registrations. In the March 6, 2018 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations and amendments to terminate uses, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency received 5 anonymous public comments on the notice but none merited its further review of the requests. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested cancellations and amendments to terminate uses. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    DATES:

    The cancellations and amendments are effective May 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0014, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This notice announces the cancellations and amendments to terminate uses, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a).

    These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.

    Table 1—Product Cancellations Registration No. Company No. Product name Active ingredient 100-774 100 Exceed Herbicide Primisulfuron-methyl & Prosulfuron. 100-907 100 Discover Herbicide Clodinafop-propargyl (CAS Reg. No.105512-06-9). 264-1144 264 Serenade Biofungicide Wettable Powder QST 713 strain of bacillus subtilis. 264-1148 264 Serenade QST 713 strain of bacillus subtilis. 264-1149 264 Serenade AS QST 713 strain of bacillus subtilis. 264-1150 264 Rhapsody AS QST 713 strain of bacillus subtilis. 432-960 432 Derringer F Herbicide Glufosinate. 432-1559 432 DuPont Tranxit Herbicide Rimsulfuron. 432-1562 432 Cimarron X-Tra Herbicide Chlorsulfuron & Metsulfuron. 1448-353 1448 Slimacide V-10 Acetic acid, bromo-, 2-butene-1,4-diyl ester. 1448-374 1448 BBAB Acetic acid, bromo-, 2-butene-1,4-diyl ester. 2217-881 2217 Gordon's Wasp & Hornet Spray Piperonyl butoxide; Permethrin & Tetramethrin. 2596-156 2596 Hartz Reference #124 Pyriproxyfen & Phenothrin. 2596-159 2596 Hartz Reference #127 Pyriproxyfen; S-Methoprene & Phenothrin. 2915-26 2915 Scented Moth Block Paradichlorobenzene. 5185-421 5185 Spa Brom Tablets 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-433 5185 Spa Brom Veriflo 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-452 5185 BCDMH99N-M 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-454 5185 BCDMH97NC-M 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-456 5185 BCDMH96NCR-M 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-457 5185 BCDMH94NCR-M 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-469 5185 Home Care Drop In 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-480 5185 Polaris Precis Spa Floater Cartridge 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 5185-490 5185 Biolab BCDMH Granular 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 6836-109 6836 Glychlor Powder 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 6836-110 6836 Bromchlor Powder 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 6836-118 6836 Dantobrom P 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-120 6836 Glybrom RW-90 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl- & 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 6836-121 6836 Glybrom RW-92.5 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl- & 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 6836-122 6836 Glybrom RW-93.5 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl- & 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 6836-196 6836 Bio Guard Bromo Brix Spa Brominating Briquettes 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-197 6836 Bioguard Brombrix Pool Brominating Briquettes 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-242 6836 Kem Tek Spa Kem Brominating Tablets 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-243 6836 Kem Tek Spa Kem Bromi-Buoy 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-265 6836 Dantobrom TBS-2.5 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-272 6836 Dantobrom TBS-4A 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-273 6836 Dantobrom TBS-5A 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-282 6836 Dantobrom PG Briquettes 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-291 6836 Dantochlor TBS-6 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-299 6836 Dantobrom TBS-7 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-300 6836 Dantobrom TBS-6 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-; 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin & 1,3-Dichloro-5-ethyl-5-methylhydantoin. 6836-312 6836 Glybrom PG-100 Powder 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl- & 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 6836-319 6836 Glychlor PG-100 Powder 1,3-Dichloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 7124-102 7124 Maxibrom Slow Dissolving Brominating Tablets for Swimming Pools & Spas 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 7124-103 7124 Maxibrom Slow Dissolving Brominating Tablets for Spas & Hot Tubs 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 7124-104 7124 Hydrobrom 3 oz. Slow Dissolving Brominating Tablets for Swimming Pools 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl-. 7401-319 7401 Ferti-Lome Quik-Kill Home & Garden Insect Spray Piperonyl butoxide & Pyrethrins. 7401-388 7401 Hi-Yield Whitefly and Mealybug Killer Piperonyl butoxide & Pyrethrins. 9688-288 9688 Chemsico Aerosol LEG o-Phenylphenol (No inert use). 10163-345 10163 T&O Fertilizer—Contains Gallery Plus Team Trifluralin; Benfluralin & Isoxaben. 10163-353 10163 Turf Fertilizer—Contains Gallery Plus Team Pro Benfluralin; Trifluralin & Isoxaben. 10163-364 10163 Showcase Oxyfluorfen; Isoxaben & Trifluralin. 33595-9 33595 Envicide II Isopropyl alcohol; Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) & Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride *(68%C12, 32%C14). 62719-713 62719 MON 89034 X TC1507 X MON 87411 X DAS-59122-7 Insect-Protected, Herbicide-Tolerant Corn dsRNA transcript comprising a DvSnf7 inverted repeat sequence derived from western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera) and the genetic material necessary for its production MON 87411 corn; Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105 protein and genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its production in corn; Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary (vector PV-ZMIR245) for its production in corn; Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (plasmid insert PHI8999) in corn; Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector PV-ZMIR10871) in corn event MON 87411 & Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material necessary for their production in corn. 66330-41 66330 Endorse Wettable Powder Fungicide Polyoxin D zinc salt. 66330-412 66330 ARY 0411-0485 Tank Mix Herbicide Clethodim & Sodium bentazon. 66397-1 66397 Aqua Basics Brominating Tablets 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl- & 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 66397-2 66397 Aqua Basics 3oz.-2” Brominating Tablets 2,4-Imidazolidinedione, 1-bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethyl- & 1,3-Dibromo-5,5-dimethylhydantoin. 67360-7 67360 Intercide ABF-2 RF501 10,10'-Oxybisphenoxarsine. 67360-9 67360 Intercide ABF-5 DIDP 10,10'-Oxybisphenoxarsine. 83979-7 83979 Rotam Paraquat Concentrate Paraquat dichloride. 87931-13 87931 Raymat Pyriproxyfen Technical Pyriproxyfen. 91640-1 91640 2,4-D Technical 2,4-D. AZ-070009 10163 Nexter Pyridaben. CA-100006 19713 Drexel Captan 4L Fungicide Captan. CA-110006 100 Touchdown Total Glyphosate. CA-870029 10163 Treflan TR-10 Trifluralin. CA-870071 60244 Orthene 75 S Soluble Powder Acephate. CA-930008 60217 Sprout NIP Emulsifiable Concentrate Chlorpropham. CO-090007 5481 Orthene Turf, Tree & Ornamental 97 Spray Acephate. DE-140004 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. FL-140003 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. GA-140001 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. IN-140001 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. LA-120010 100 Gramoxone SL 2.0 Paraquat dichloride. MD-140001 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. MI-120003 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. NC-140001 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. ND-050010 10163 Sonalan 10G Ethalfluralin. ND-090004 10163 Sonalan 10G Ethalfluralin. NV-130001 10163 Onager 1E Hexythiazox. VA-140001 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. WA-010009 34704 Saber Herbicide 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt. WA-040027 5481 Discipline 2EC Bifenthrin. WA-040030 34704 Atrazine 4L Atrazine. WA-040034 66222 Diazinon AG500 Diazinon. WA-050005 5481 Discipline 2EC Bifenthrin. WA-090013 34704 Curbit EC Herbicide Ethalfluralin. WA-900040 34704 Clean Crop Simazine 4L Flowable Herbicide Simazine. WA-980025 34704 Clean Crop Supreme Oil Mineral oil—includes paraffin oil from 063503. WI-140002 81880 Sandea Herbicide Halosulfuron-methyl. WY-070008 10163 Onager Miticide Hexythiazox. Table 2—Product Registration Amendments To Terminate Uses Registration No. Company No. Product name Active ingredient Uses to be terminated 100-969 100 Scholar Fungicide Fludioxonil Pre-harvest uses and associated pre-harvest label language for the following crops: Melons and the post-harvest uses for citrus, pineapple, pome, tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C, stone fruit, sweet potatoes, tomato, tropical fruit, and true yam without prejudice. 100-1131 100 Callisto Herbicide Mesotrione Tolerances for Grass, Seed screenings and grass, straw. 1839-18 1839 BTC 776 Concentrated Germicide Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) & Dialkyl* methyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60% C14, 30% C16, 5% C18, 5% C12) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-19 1839 BTC 8249 Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-23 1839 BTC 824 Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-33 1839 BTC 8248 Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-46 1839 BTC 2125M Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) & Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride *(68%C12, 32%C14) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-54 1839 BTC 2125M-80% Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) & Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride *(68%C12, 32%C14) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-55 1839 BTC 2125 M-P 40 Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(60%C14, 30%C16, 5%C18, 5%C12) & Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride *(68%C12, 32%C14) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-65 1839 BTC 65 Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(67%C12, 25%C14, 7%C16, 1%C8, C10, and C18) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-68 1839 BTC 8358 Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-207 1839 BTC 5814-80% Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(58%C14, 28%C16, 14%C12) Turfs/Lawns. 1839-228 1839 BTC 451 P/S Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride *(50%C14, 40%C12, 10%C16) Turfs/Lawns. 53883-310 53883 Quali-Pro Chlorothalonil 720 SFT Chlorothalonil Apricot, cherry (sweet), cherry (tart), nectarine, peach, plum and prune. 53883-313 53883 Quali-Pro Chlorothalonil DF Chlorothalonil Apricot, cherry (sweet), cherry (tart), nectarine, peach, plum and prune. 62097-15 62097 Uniconazole-P Technical Uniconazole P Outdoor shade house and lath house. 62097-18 62097 Concise Uniconazole P Outdoor shade house and lath house. 65217-1 65217 Biobor JF 1,3,2-Dioxaborinane, 2,2'-((1-methyl-1,3-propanediyl)bis(oxy))bis(4-methyl- & 1,3,2-Dioxaborinane, 2,2'oxybis(4,4,6-trimethyl- Wood preservative. 75499-19 75499 Vitagib 40% Soluble Powder Plant Growth Regulator Gibberellic acid Silage.

    Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.

    EPA company No. Company name and address 100 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. 264 Bayer CropScience, LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 432 Bayer Environmental Science, A Division of Bayer CropScience, LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 1448 Buckman Laboratories, Inc., 1256 North McLean Blvd., Memphis, TN 38108. 1839 Stepan Company, 22 W. Frontage Rd., Northfield, IL 60093. 2217 PBI-Gordon Corporation, 1217 West 12th Street, P.O. Box 014090, Kansas City, MI 64101-0090. 2596 The Hartz Mountain Corporation, 400 Plaza Drive, Secaucus, NJ 07094. 2915 The Fuller Brush Company, 860 Kaiser Road, Suite D, Napa, CA 94558. 5185 Bio-Lab, Inc., P.O. Box 300002, Lawrenceville, GA 30049-1002. 5481 AMVAC Chemical Corporation, 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 1200, Newport Beach, CA 92660-1706. 6836 Lonza, Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401. 7124 Alden Leeds, Inc., 55 Jacobus Ave., South Kearny, NJ 07032. 7401 Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., Agent Name: Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th Street Ct. NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 9688 Chemsico, A Division of United Industries Corp., P.O. Box 142642, St. Louis, MO 63114-0642. 10163 Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. 19713 Drexel Chemical Company, P.O. Box 13327, Memphis, TN 38113-0327. 33595 Plaze, Inc., 1000 Integram Drive, Pacific, MO 63069. 34704 Loveland Products, Inc., P.O. Box 1286, Greeley, CO 80632-1286. 53883 Control Solutions, Inc., 5903 Genoa Red Bluff Road, Pasadena, TX 77507. 60217 Easter Lily Research Foundation, (of the) Pacific Bulb Growers Assc., P.O. Box 907, Brookings, OR 97415. 60244 Seminis Vegetable Seeds, 37437 State Highway 16, Woodland, CA 95695. 62097 Fine Agrochemicals, Ltd., Agent Name: SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192. 62719 Dow AgrosSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., 308/2E, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054. 65217 Hammonds Fuel Additives, Inc., Agent Name: Delta Analytical Corp., 12510 Prosperity Drive, Suite 160, Silver Spring, MD 20904. 66222 Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., d/b/a ADAMA, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. 66330 Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. 66397 Mid-Continent Packaging, Inc., 1200 N 54th Street, Enid, OK 73701. 67360 Polymer Additives, Inc., d/b/a Valtris Specialty Chemicals, Agent Name: Technology Sciences Group, Inc., 1150 18th St., NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036. 75499 Plant Synergists, Inc., 4730 Kingussie Drive, Houston, TX 77084. 81880 Canyon Group, LLC, c/o Gowan Company, 370 S. Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364. 83979 Rotam North America, Inc., Agent Name: Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707. 87931 Raymat Materials, Inc., Agent Name: Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th Street Ct. NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 91640 Genmerica NA, LLC, Agent Name: GHB Consulting, 1660 3rd Ave., SW, Le Mars, IA 51031. III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    During the public comment period provided EPA received 5 anonymous public comments. The Agency does not believe that the comments submitted during the comment period merits further review or the denial of the requests for the voluntary cancellations of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II or the requests for the amendments to terminate uses in Table 2 of Unit II.

    IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations and amendments to terminate uses of the registrations identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II are canceled and amended to terminate the affected uses. The effective date of the cancellations that are subject of this notice is May 31, 2018. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI will be a violation of FIFRA.

    V. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of March 6, 2018 (83 FR 9512) (FRL-9974-09). The comment period closed on April 5, 2018.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. The existing stocks provision for the products subject to this order is as follows.

    A. For Product 100-907

    The registrant has requested to the Agency via letter dated November 10, 2017, a 12-month period (until November 30, 2018), to sell, distribute or use existing stocks of the subject product.

    For all other voluntary product cancellations identified in Table 1 of Unit II, registrants will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

    Now that EPA has approved product labels reflecting the requested amendments to terminate uses for the products listed in Table 2 of Unit II, registrants are permitted to sell or distribute the products listed in Table 2 of Unit II, under the previously approved labeling until December 2, 2019, unless other restrictions have been imposed. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products whose labels include the terminated uses identified in Table 2 of Unit II, except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal.

    Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products and products whose labels include the terminated uses until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products and terminated uses.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 3, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11731 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9978-74—Region 4] Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the Commonwealth of Kentucky AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of tentative approval.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Kentucky has revised its drinking water regulation defining a public water system. EPA has determined that Kentucky's regulation is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation. Therefore, EPA is tentatively approving this revision to the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Public Water System Supervision Program.

    DATES:

    Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 2, 2018, to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 4 street address shown below. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by July 2, 2018, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and applicable on July 2, 2018. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    ADDRESSES:

    All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following locations: The 3rd Floor main office of the Division of Water, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, 300 Sower Boulevard, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; and the 9th floor library of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dale Froneberger, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section, by mail at the Atlanta street address given above, by telephone at (404) 562-9446, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commonwealth of Kentucky has submitted a request that EPA Region 4 approve a revision to the Commonwealth's Safe Drinking Act Public Water System Supervision Program to include changes to the Commonwealth's regulation defining a public water system. Kentucky's amended regulation incorporates the current federal regulation defining a public water system by reference. The Commonwealth's amended regulation was effective September 25, 2009. For the request to be approved, EPA must find the commonwealth definition of a public water system codified at Title 401 KAR 8:010, to be no less stringent than the federal definition of a public water system codified at 40 CFR part 141, subpart A. EPA reviewed the Commonwealth's request using the federal statutory provisions (Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act), federal regulations (at 40 CFR parts 141 and 142), commonwealth regulations, regulatory crosswalk, and EPA regulatory guidance to determine whether the request for revision is approvable. EPA determined that the Kentucky regulation is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulation and is tentatively approving this revision. If EPA does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this approval shall become final and effective on July 2, 2018.

    Authority:

    Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11753 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1162] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 30, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1162.

    Title: Closed Captioning of Video Programming Delivered Using Internet Protocol, and Apparatus Closed Caption Requirements.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or Household, Businesses or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,172 respondents; 3,341 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.084-10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One time and on occasion reporting requirements; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory; Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 330(b), 713, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 330(b), 613, and 617.

    Total Annual Burden: 9,197 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $95,700.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. As required by OMB Memorandum M-03-22 (September 26, 2003), the FC completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) on June 28, 2007, that gives a full and complete explanation of how the FCC collects, stores, maintains, safeguards, and destroys the PII covered by these information collection requirements. The PIA may be reviewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Some assurances of confidentiality are being provided to the respondents. Parties filing petitions for exemption based on economic burden, requests for Commission determinations of technical feasibility and achievability, requests for purpose-based waivers, or responses to complaints alleging violations of the Commission's rules may seek confidential treatment of information they provide pursuant to the Commission's existing confidentiality rules.

    The Commission is not requesting that individuals who file complaints alleging violations of our rules (complainants) submit confidential information (e.g., credit card numbers, social security numbers, or personal financial information) to us. We request that complainants submit their names, addresses, and other contact information, which enables us to process complaints. Any use of this information is covered under the routine uses listed in the Commission's SORN, FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance.”

    The PIA that the FCC completed on June 28, 2007 gives a full and complete explanation of how the FCC collects, stores, maintains, safeguards, and destroys PII, as required by OMB regulations and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The PIA may be viewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.

    The Commission will update the PIA to cover the PII collected related to this information collection to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN and as required by OMB's Memorandum M-03-22 (September 26, 2003) and by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is submitting this revised information collection to transfer certain information collection burdens associated with this OMB control number to another OMB control number. This change is being made to reflect the development of an online form for use by consumers in filing complaints with the Commission that allege violations of the FCC's disability accessibility requirements. The online form is part of an information collection reflected in OMB control number 3060-0874.

    The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) directed the Commission to revise its regulations to mandate closed captioning on IP-delivered video programming that was published or exhibited on television with captions after the effective date of the regulations. Accordingly, the Commission requires video programming owners (VPOs) to send program files to video programming distributors and providers (hereinafter VPDs) with required captions, and it requires VPDs to enable the rendering or pass through of all required captions to the end user. The CVAA also directed the Commission to revise its regulations to mandate that all apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record video programming be equipped with built-in closed caption decoder circuitry or capability designed to display closed-captioned video programming, except that apparatus that use a picture screen that is 13 inches or smaller and recording devices must comply only if doing so is achievable. These rules are codified at 47 CFR 79.4 and 79.100-79.104.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11720 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 18-546] Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the next meeting of the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC or Committee).

    DATES:

    Thursday, June 14, 2018. The meeting will come to order at 9:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Will Schell, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at 202-418-0767 (voice) or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to members of the general public. The meeting will be webcast with open captioning at: www.fcc.gov/live. In addition, a reserved amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. Members of the public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address [email protected]

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations or for materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) should be submitted via email to: [email protected] or by calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Requests should be made as early as possible; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.

    Proposed Agenda: At this meeting, the DAC is expected to receive and consider reports from its subcommittees on Emergency Communications; Video Programming; Technology Transitions; and Relay & Equipment Distribution. The DAC is also expected to receive presentations from Commission staff or others on matters of interest to the Committee.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gregory Haledjian, Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11627 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 18-506] Meeting of the Consumer Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces and provides an agenda for the next meeting of Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC).

    DATES:

    June 8, 2018. The meeting will come to order at 9:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Commission Meeting Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, (202) 418-2809 (voice or Relay); email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will accommodate as many participants as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will also provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the internet from the FCC's web page at: www.fcc.gov/live. Oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the CAC will be permitted to the extent time permits, at the discretion of the CAC Chair and the DFO. Members of the public may submit comments to the CAC in the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, at: www.fcc.gov/ecfs.

    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to: [email protected] or by calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.

    Proposed Agenda: At its June 8, 2018 meeting, the Committee will receive briefings from Commission staff on issues of interest to the Committee and may discuss topics including, but not limited to, consumer protection and education, consumer participation in the FCC rulemaking process, and the impact of new and emerging communication technologies.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gregory Haledjian, Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11721 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012136-003.

    Title: HSDG/ML/MSC Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Hamburg-Sud, Maersk Line A/S, and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

    Filing Parties: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment would delete Hamburg Sud as a party to the agreement, change the name of agreement, and restate agreement.

    Agreement No.: 201256.

    Title: Maersk/MSC Gulf-ECSA Vessel Sharing Agreement.

    Parties: Maersk Line A/S and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street, NW; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The agreement would authorize the parties to share vessels in the trade between the U.S. Gulf Coast on the one hand and ports in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Panama on the other hand.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Rachel Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11723 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 25, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Wintrust Financial Corporation, Rosemont, Illinois; to merge with Chicago Shore Corporation, Chicago, Illinois and thereby indirectly acquire Delaware Place Bank, Chicago, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 24, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11589 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 14, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Denis Daly Trust, UAD 12/24/12, Denis Daly, trustee, River Forest, Illinois; Daly 2017 Gift Trust, Dorothy Daly, trustee, Oak Brook, Illinois; and Eleanor Daly, an individual, River Forest, Illinois individually and joining a group in concert; to retain and acquire additional voting shares of Trans Pacific Bancorp, and thereby acquire shares of Beacon Business Bank, National Association, both of San Francisco, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 24, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11590 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-MG-2018-01; Docket No. 2018-0002; Sequence No. 13] Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings; Green Building Advisory Committee; Notification of Upcoming Conference Calls AGENCY:

    Office of Government-Wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice of this meeting and these conference calls is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice provides the agendas and schedules for the September 27, 2018 meeting of the Green Building Advisory Committee (the Committee), as well as the schedule for a series of conference calls for a task group of the Committee.

    DATES:

    Meeting date: The fall meeting of the Committee will be held on Thursday, September 27, 2018, starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and ending no later than 4:00 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, Room 1151. The in-person meeting is open to the public and the site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The task group conference calls are open for the public to listen in. Interested individuals must register to attend as instructed below under Supplementary Information.

    The Building and Grid Integration Task Group will hold recurring, weekly conference calls on Wednesdays beginning June 27, 2018, through November 14, 2018, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., EDT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Ken Sandler, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings, Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-219-1121 (note: this is not a toll-free number). Additional information about the Committee, including meeting materials and agendas, will be available on-line at http://www.gsa.gov/gbac.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Procedures for Attendance and Public Comment: Contact Mr. Ken Sandler at [email protected] to register to attend the in-person meeting or listen to any of these conference calls. To attend any of these events, submit your full name, organization, email address, and phone number, and which you would like to attend. Requests to attend the conference calls must be received by 5:00 p.m. EDT, on Monday, June 25, 2018. (GSA will be unable to provide technical assistance to any listener experiencing technical difficulties. Testing access to the Web meeting site before the calls is recommended.) Requests to attend the September 27, 2018 meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m., EDT, on Friday, August 31, 2018.

    Contact Mr. Sandler to register to comment during the September 27, 2018 meeting public comment period. Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed a maximum of five minutes each, and will need to provide written copies of their presentations. Requests to comment at the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m., EDT, on Friday, August 31, 2018. Written comments may be provided to Mr. Sandler by the same deadline.

    Background: The Administrator of GSA established the Committee on June 20, 2011 (Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 118) pursuant to Section 494 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, 42 U.S.C. 17123). Under this authority, the Committee provides independent policy advice and recommendations to GSA to advance federal building innovations in planning, design, and operations to reduce costs, enable agency missions, enhance human health and performance, and minimize environmental impacts.

    The new Building and Grid Integration Task Group is pursuing the goal to develop recommendations on the integration of federal buildings with the electrical grid to enhance resilience, provide savings of both energy and cost, and facilitate distributed energy generation, including renewable sources.

    The conference calls will allow the task group to develop consensus recommendations to the full Committee, which will, in turn, decide whether to proceed with formal advice to GSA based upon these recommendations.

    September 27, 2018 Meeting Agenda • Updates and Introductions • Building-grid integration task group update • Lunchtime speaker (TBD) • Election for Committee Chair • Identifying new topic areas to pursue • Next steps Dated: May 25, 2018. Kevin Kampschroer, Federal Director, Office of Federal High-Performance Buildings, General Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11707 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-QP-2018-01; Docket No. 2018-0002; Sequence No. 10] Notice of Public Meeting Concerning Procurement Through Commercial e-Commerce Portals AGENCY:

    Office of Enterprise Strategy Management (QP), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    GSA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are interested in conducting further dialogue with industry about Section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, Procurement through Commercial e-Commerce Portals. A public meeting was held on January 9, 2018 to provide external stakeholders an initial opportunity to offer input on Phase I implementation as outlined in Section 846. A second public meeting is scheduled for June 21, 2018, where GSA and OMB will share insights on our proposed approach and solicit feedback and insights from industry to inform our Phase II deliverable.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: GSA and OMB are holding a modified town-hall style public meeting on Thursday, June 21, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., EST (Eastern Standard Time). The public is asked to register by Thursday, June 14, 2018, due to security and seating limitations. To register, please visit the Commercial Platform Interact group page on https://interact.gsa.gov/group/commercial-platform-initiative, and utilize the in-person registration link provided. Further information for the public meeting may be found under the heading SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. GSA will also be posting more detailed information on our Commercial Platform Interact group page.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the GSA Auditorium at GSA Headquarters located at 1800 F St. NW, Washington, DC 20405. Interested parties may also attend virtually through GSA's virtual meeting platform, hosted by Adobe Connect. Further details on the virtual meeting will be made available a few days before the meeting on the Commercial Platform Interact group page on https://interact.gsa.gov/group/commercial-platform-initiative.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information pertaining to the public meeting and for a posting of the agenda (made available a few days prior to the meeting), visit the Commercial Platform Interact group page located at https://interact.gsa.gov/group/commercial-platform-initiative. For more specific questions, please contact Jasmine Schaaphok at [email protected], or 571-330-3941. For information pertaining to only status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite “Notice QP-2018-01, Notice of Public Meeting Concerning Procurement through Commercial e-Commerce Portals”.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    The General Services Administration's mission is to deliver value and savings in real estate, acquisition, technology, and other mission-support services across Government. For decades, GSA has provided access to commercial products through a number of channels including GSA Advantage!, GSA eBuy, GSA Global Supply, and the Federal Supply Schedules.

    GSA has long been focused on improving the acquisition of commercial items. Throughout its history, GSA has sought to leverage the best available technology to help agencies shorten the time to delivery, reduce administrative cost, make compliance easier, be a strategic thought leader and supplier of choice across the Federal Government, and be a good partner to industry. Today, the best available technology includes commercial e-commerce portals.

    The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, Section 846, Procurement Through Commercial e-Commerce Portals, directs the Administrator of the GSA to establish a program to procure commercial products through commercial e-commerce portals. Section 846 paragraph (c) instructs the “Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the GSA Administrator and the heads of other relevant departments and agencies,” to carry out three implementation phases. OMB and GSA completed Phase I, an initial implementation plan, in March of 2018. The plan, found at https://interact.gsa.gov/document/gsa-and-omb-phase-i-deliverable-attached, discusses government and industry stakeholder goals and concerns, the different types of portal provider models currently prevalent in the commercial market, and areas where legislative change or clarification are required to enable flexibility in the full and effective use of commercial e-commerce portals in accordance with the goals of section 846. The plan also outlines deliverables anticipated to be completed in FYs 18, 19, and 20. This public meeting is in conjunction with the request for written comments being solicited through “Notice QP-2018-02, Request for information from Suppliers Selling on Commercial e-Commerce Portals,” and “Notice QP-2018-03, Request for information from Platform Providers of Commercial e-Commerce Portals.” These requests for information (RFIs) are expected to be published in the Federal Register in early June.

    The team is currently working on Phase II with the intent of delivering a proof of concept near the end of FY19. Phase II of the legislation requires (excerpt below):

    (2) PHASE II: MARKET ANALYSIS AND CONSULTATION.—Not later than one year after the date of the submission of the implementation plan and schedule required under paragraph (1), recommendations for any changes to, or exemptions from, laws necessary for effective implementation of this section, and information on the results of the following actions:

    (A) Market analysis and initial communications with potential commercial e-commerce portal providers on technical considerations of how the portals function (including the use of standard terms and conditions of the portals by the Government), the degree of customization that can occur without creating a Government-unique portal, the measures necessary to address the considerations for supplier and product screening specified in subsection (e), security of data, considerations pertaining to nontraditional Government contractors, and potential fees, if any, to be charged by the Administrator, the portal provider, or the suppliers for participation in the program established pursuant to subsection (a).

    (B) Consultation with affected departments and agencies about their unique procurement needs, such as supply chain risks for health care products, information technology, software, or any other category determined necessary by the Administrator.

    (C) An assessment of the products or product categories that are suitable for purchase on the commercial e-commerce portals.

    (D) An assessment of the precautions necessary to safeguard any information pertaining to the Federal Government, especially precautions necessary to protect against national security or cybersecurity threats.

    (E) A review of standard terms and conditions of commercial e-commerce portals in the context of Government requirements.

    (F) An assessment of the impact on existing programs, including schedules, set-asides for small business concerns, and other preference programs.

    In furtherance of Phase II objectives, GSA is planning to share information related to the approach proposed in the Phase I deliverable and respond to questions from industry. Additionally, the team is seeking feedback from providers of commercial e-commerce portal as well as suppliers selling on commercial e-commerce portals in certain topic areas, as listed in “Notice QP-2018-02, Request for information from Suppliers Selling on Commercial e-Commerce Portals,” and “Notice QP-2018-03, Request for information from Platform Providers of Commercial e-Commerce Portals.”

    B. Public Meeting

    In-person Attendance: Registration check-in will begin at 7:30 a.m., EST, on June 21, 2018, with the meeting starting promptly at 8:30 a.m., EST. Attendees must be prepared to present a form of government-issued photo identification.

    Format: GSA and OMB intend to conduct a modified town-hall/panel style discussion focused around two main topics.

    1. GSA and OMB will discuss and field questions related to the findings from Phase I of the implementation plan, initial thoughts on Phase II, and the implementation of a proof of concept in FY19.

    2. GSA intends to organize a panel discussion around the questions asked to portal providers and suppliers on portals found in RFIs “Notice QP-2018-02, Request for information from Suppliers Selling on Commercial e-Commerce Portals,” and “Notice QP-2018-03, Request for information from Platform Providers of Commercial e-Commerce Portals.”

    Parties wishing to participate as a panel member in the public meeting scheduled for June 21, 2018, should email [email protected] by Thursday, June 14, 2018, with the subject line “Request to be panelist at upcoming public meeting” and should identify their company, role in company, and a short statement about their interest/qualifications for being a panelist.

    GSA will select panelists from among those expressing interest and will formally notify them no later than Monday, June 18, 2018. In selecting panelists, GSA will seek an array of perspectives, backgrounds, and views. Requests made after the deadline to participate on a panel cannot be accepted due to the tight timelines.

    Meeting Accommodations: The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to [email protected] by Thursday, June 14, 2018. Please see the Commercial Platform Interact group page at https://interact.gsa.gov/group/commercial-platform-initiative for additional information on public meeting content and for a posting of the agenda (to be made available a few days prior to the meeting). For more specific questions, please send an email to [email protected]

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Laura J. Stanton, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Enterprise Strategy Management, Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11717 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-89-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture Database.”

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected].

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by emails at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture Database

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public the comment on this proposed information collection. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of care for patients (IOM, 1999; To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System). To respond to the need for tools to assess patient safety culture in health care, AHRQ developed and pilot tested the Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture with OMB approval (OMB NO. 0935-0132; Approved July 5, 2007).

    The survey is designed to enable nursing homes to assess provider and staff perspectives about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting and includes 42 items that measure 12 composites of patient safety culture. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in November, 2008, on the AHRQ website.

    The AHRQ Nursing Home SOPS Database consists of data from the AHRQ Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Nursing homes in the U.S. can voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ through its contractor, Westat. The Nursing Home SOPS Database (OMB NO. 0935-0195, last approved on September 30, 2015) was developed by AHRQ in 2011 in response to requests from nursing homes interested in viewing their organizations' patient safety culture survey results. Those organizations submitting data receive a feedback report, as well as a report on the aggregated de-identified findings of the other nursing homes submitting data. These reports are used to assist nursing home staff in their efforts to improve patient safety culture in their organizations.

    Rationale for the information collection. The Nursing Home SOPS and Nursing Home SOPS Database support AHRQ's goals of promoting improvements in the quality and safety of health care in nursing home settings. The survey, toolkit materials, and database results are all made publicly available on AHRQ's website. Technical assistance is provided by AHRQ through its contractor at no charge to nursing homes, to facilitate the use of these materials for nursing home patient safety and quality improvement.

    This database will:

    (1) Present results from nursing homes that voluntarily submit their data;

    (2) Provide data to nursing homes to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process; and

    (3) Provide supplemental information to help nursing homes identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to surveys and database development. 42 U.S.C 299a(a)(1) and (8).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:

    (1) Eligibility and Registration Form—The nursing home (or parent organization) point-of-contact (POC) completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with the completion of an online Eligibility and Registration Form. The purpose of this form is to collect basic demographic information about the nursing home and initiate the registration process.

    (2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the nursing home POC, is to state how data submitted by nursing homes will be used and provides privacy assurances.

    (3) Nursing Home Site Information Form—The purpose of the site information form, completed by the nursing home POC, is to collect background characteristics of the nursing home. This information will be used to analyze data collected with the Nursing Home SOPS survey.

    (4) Data File(s) Submission—POCs upload their data file(s) using the data file specifications, to ensure that users submit standardized and consistent data in the way variables are named, coded and formatted. The number of submissions to the database is likely to vary each year because nursing homes do not administer the survey and submit data every year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who is either a corporate level health care manager for a Quality Improvement Organization (QIO), a survey vendor who contracts with a nursing home to collect their data, or a nursing home Director of Nursing or nurse manager. POCs submit data on behalf of 5 nursing homes, on average, because many nursing homes are part of a QIO or larger nursing home or health system that includes many nursing home sites, or the POC is a vendor that is submitting data for multiple nursing homes.

    Survey data from the AHRQ Nursing Home Survey on Patient Safety Culture are used to produce three types of products:

    (1) A Nursing Home SOPS User Database Report that is made publicly available on the AHRQ website;

    (2) Individual Nursing Home Survey Feedback Reports are individualized reports produced for each nursing home that submits data to the database; and

    (3) Research data sets of individual-level and nursing home-level de-identified data to enable researchers to conduct analyses. All data released in a data set are de-identified at the individual-level and the nursing home-level.

    Nursing homes will be invited to voluntarily submit their Nursing Home SOPS survey data to the database. The data are then cleaned and aggregated and used to produce a Database Report in PDF format that displays averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 42 items and 12 patient safety culture composites, as well as displaying these results by nursing home characteristics (bed size, urbanicity, ownership, and region) and respondent characteristics (work area/unit, staff position, interaction with residents, shift worked most often, and tenure in nursing home).

    Each nursing home that submits data receives an individualized survey feedback report that presents their results alongside the aggregate results from other participating nursing homes.

    Nursing homes use the Nursing Home SOPS Database Reports and Individual Nursing Home Survey Feedback Reports for a number of purposes, to:

    • Raise staff awareness about patient safety.

    • Elucidate and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their nursing home.

    • Identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement.

    • Evaluate trends in patient safety culture change over time.

    • Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and interventions.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. An estimated 60 POCs, each representing an average of 5 individual nursing homes each, will complete the database submission steps and forms. Each POC will submit the following:

    • Eligibility and registration form (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).

    • Data Use Agreement (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).

    • Nursing Home Site Information Form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).

    • Survey data submission will take an average of one hour.

    The total annual burden hours are estimated to be 91 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $4,085 annually.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per POC
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Eligibility/Registration Form 60 1 3/60 3 Data Use Agreement 60 1 3/60 3 Nursing Home Site Information Form 60 5 5/60 25 Data Files Submission 60 1 1 60 Total NA NA NA 91
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Eligibility/Registration Forms 60 3 $44.89 $135 Data Use Agreement 60 3 44.89 135 Nursing Home Site Information Form 60 25 44.89 1,122 Data Files Submission 60 60 44.89 2,693 Total 240 91 NA 4,085 * The wage rate in Exhibit 2 is based on May 2017 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Labor. Mean hourly wages for nursing home POCs are located at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_623000.htm. The hourly wage of $44.89 is the weighted mean of $45.81 (General and Operations Managers 11-1021; N = 40) and $43.04 (Medical and Health Services Managers 11-9111; N = 20).
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Francis D. Chesley, Jr., Acting Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11657 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-FY-18ACD; Docket No. CDC-2018-0043] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take an opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled StopAnthraxTM. This new generic clearance will support the collection of information from (1) persons exposed to an intentional release of anthrax that were given post-exposure prophylactic medical countermeasures—antibiotics or antibiotics and vaccine and (2) persons participating in points of dispensing (PODs) exercises conducted by state and local health departments. CDC will use this information to (1) inform response activities during an anthrax incident and (2) improve the StopAnthraxTM program.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0043 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

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

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

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

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

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    StopAnthraxTM—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Community and Health Systems Team (CHST), in collaboration with Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), and the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS) developed the StopAnthraxTM mobile app push notification program (hereafter referred to as StopAnthraxTM) to be activated following an aerosolized release of anthrax in the United States. The purpose of this program is to use mobile app procedures to collect data about medication adherence and adverse drug event symptoms and to enhance self-reporting of medical countermeasure (MCM) adverse events to existing surveillance systems. The focus of StopAnthraxTM is on MCMs—ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, amoxicillin, and Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA)—distributed to communities after an anthrax incident.

    CDC operationalized StopAnthraxTM into a mobile app for ease of use with any smart phone. CDC will initiate activation of StopAnthraxTM following an anthrax incident and adults receiving anthrax MCMs will be able to voluntarily enroll in the program. Respondents will provide information through the CDC-developed mobile application. StopAnthraxTM will collect information necessary to send, personalize, and tailor messages as much as possible for the individual respondent (e.g., first name, zip code, which MCM the respondent is taking, if they are pregnant or have a child also taking MCMs), to understand their level of medication adherence, and capture any adverse symptoms attributed to taking the medication or anthrax disease. The information collection (IC) will take place within the United States in any area(s) affected by an anthrax incident. Respondents will include adults who were in or near the affected area during the time of the anthrax incident and have been given the select MCMs for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of anthrax. Respondents may include English or Spanish-speaking single adults, adults with one or more children affected, and pregnant women. Respondents enrolled in StopAnthraxTM may choose to respond to the IC at any location in which they are utilizing their cellular phones (e.g., home, school, work). The IC will occur following an anthrax incident and will continue for up to 120 days after the incident.

    StopAnthraxTM and the IC will be overseen by CDC. State and local public health workers in the affected area will be responsible for promoting enrollment into the program utilizing a standardized enrollment process. All respondents will voluntarily opt into the program by downloading the app from the Apple or Google stores and following an easy enrollment process. Once enrolled, respondents will answer a short series of questions to ensure they are enrolled in the appropriate protocol (i.e., population and MCM-specific). Respondents will receive push notifications for a period of up to 60 days and will periodically be asked questions about their medication adherence and any adverse symptoms resulting from taking the MCM or from anthrax. Respondents will utilize their cellular telephones to send responses back to the system, which will store the information in a secure CDC-managed database.

    In a post-incident setting, such as an aerosolized release of anthrax, wide-spread administration of MCMs in diverse populations is anticipated. CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are responsible for monitoring the safety of these MCMs. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are two national surveillance systems used to monitor adverse drug events. VAERS and FAERS serve as early warning systems to detect possible safety issues related to drugs, such as the MCMs distributed during an anthrax inhalation incident. However, these systems are passive and may not provide the timely information useful in a response. Data collected from StopAnthraxTM is intended to supplement VAERS and FAERS surveillance and provide near real-time safety monitoring and information. CDC and FDA can use the de-identified information provided by the vendor to more effectively respond to the incident. In addition, the program has an added benefit for those participating as it provides medication reminders, prompts for directing those who experience adverse event symptoms to seek medical treatment, and provides relevant health education messages about MCMs and anthrax.

    CDC will disseminate de-identified information through a variety of methods dependent on the type of anthrax incident and subsequent response. During a response, information will be disseminated within the CDC response teams and other federal agencies engaged in the response, such as FDA. Information will be disseminated to federal agency responders through situation reports which may include report outs over the phone, data summaries, and action reports that would be sent electronically. After the IC period ends (e.g., StopAnthraxTM is no longer active), CDC may elect to present the findings at a professional conference or submit a manuscript to a professional peer-reviewed journal. Data will only be reported in the aggregate and would focus on the process and actions taken before and during a response. The IC is completely voluntary.

    Any individuals receiving MCMs that elect to enroll and provide data will be part of the sample. All recipients will be given the opportunity to enroll in StopAnthraxTM. There is no planned sample size as this would depend on the scale of the incident and enrollment into StopAnthraxTM. Information about StopAnthraxTM and enrollment into the program will be available to all recipients of MCMs. Information will be collected electronically via push notification prompted by a series of questions contained within StopAnthraxTM.

    StopAnthraxTM spans a total of 60 days. Those enrolled will not be asked to respond to questions every day. The amount of time that one may take in responding to the messages will vary depending on the individual's situation (i.e., they may be asked a series of follow up questions based on their responses). On average, it is not expected to take longer than 1.5 hours for one respondent to respond to all questions contained in the 60 day program.

    All respondents will be informed that their participation is voluntary, and they can opt out at any time after enrollment; their information will be treated in a secure manner, and protected to the extent allowed by law. Although some respondents may feel some level of embarrassment in indicating they experienced certain adverse event symptoms (e.g., severe diarrhea), none of the information being collected is of a highly sensitive nature. Data will be housed on secure servers to which only project staff from CDC and contractors will have access, and all data will be de-identified in any reports or other materials produced by CDC. The IC is expected to have limited impact on respondents' privacy. Mobile apps are a relatively private method in which to collect information (as compared to focus groups and other methods). Although it is possible that notifications or responses may be intercepted or seen by someone who is not part of the team collecting the data, it is not likely that this will have a major impact on the respondents' privacy.

    CDC and contractors will also conduct periodic usability and user experience tests of StopAnthraxTM in conjunction with points of dispensing (PODs) exercises conducted by state and local health departments across the US. The purpose of these tests would be to evaluate the acceptability of the program with members of the potential target audience following an anthrax incident and to ensure proper functionality of the StopAnthraxTM protocols within the system. These tests will occur no more than twice a year and feedback on the program will be collected from volunteers participating in the jurisdictional exercises through one or more of the following mechanisms; in-person focus groups, online survey, online discussion groups.

    CDC is requesting approval for this new generic clearance for data collection for a period of three years. The total burden hours for respondents is 38,000 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Adult MCM recipient 60-day StopAnthraxTM program 20,000 1 90/60 30,000 POD volunteer participating in user experience/usability testing of shortened StopAnthraxTM protocol Shortened (10-day) StopAnthrax protocol 4,000 1 30/60 2,000 POD volunteer participating in user experience/usability testing Online Survey 2,000 1 1 2,000 POD volunteer participating in user experience/usability testing Discussion/focus groups 2,000 1 2 4,000 Total 38,000
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11648 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket No. CDC-2018-0054] Proposed Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Success Rates Reporting and Data Validation Procedures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requests comments on a plan to (1) revise the definition and characterization of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) success rates and (2) introduce clinic validation footnotes for the annual ART Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. The footnotes will identify clinics that are selected by CDC to participate in the validation process of the National ART Surveillance System (NASS) data and that: (1) Do participate, (2) do participate and have major data discrepancies identified through this process, and/or U3) decline to participate in the data validation process. CDC requests comments on this plan in order to continue to ensure that the public has access to accurate and transparent data pursuant to the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0054 by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Sara Crawford, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Phone: (770) 488-6370. Email: [email protected]

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Crawford, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. Phone: (770) 488-6370. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Success Rates A. Background

    Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a)), the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program report annually to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pregnancy success rates achieved through assisted reproductive technology. The FCSRCA also requires the CDC to annually publish and distribute to the public reported pregnancy success rates. According to the FCSRCA, the definitions of pregnancy success rates should be developed in consultation with appropriate consumer and professional organizations, should take into account the effect on success rates of age, diagnosis, and other significant factors, and should include the live birth rate per attempted ovarian stimulation procedure and the live birth rate per successful oocyte retrieval.

    Specifics about the reporting process and requirements are described in “Reporting of Pregnancy Success Rates from Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Programs” (80 FR 51811). Specifics about the definition and characterization of ART success rates were last described in “Reporting of Pregnancy Success Rates from Assisted Reproductive Technology Programs” (69 FR 5548). Success rates for fresh, nondonor cycles were defined as: (1) The rate of pregnancy after completion of ART according to the number of all ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures;

    (2) the rate of live birth after completion of ART according to the number of all ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures, the number of oocyte retrieval processes, and the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures; (3) the rate of singleton live birth after completion of ART according to the number of all ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures and the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures. Success rates for cycles using thawed embryos and cycles using donor oocytes or embryos were defined as: (4) The rate of live birth after completion of ART according to the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures; (5) the rate of singleton live birth after completion of ART according to the number of embryo (or zygote or oocyte) transfer procedures.

    Effective for reporting year 2017, CDC is proposing substantial changes to the definition and characterization of ART success rates due to changes in clinical practice and more variation in treatment options, including improvements in cryopreservation resulting in more segmentation of typical treatment cycles. The field of ART is moving toward the calculation and reporting of cumulative success rates where data collection systems can collect successes over all embryo transfers from a single oocyte retrieval or across several oocyte retrievals and embryo transfers. After consultation with consumer and professional organizations with expertise in ART, CDC will begin cumulative ART success rates reporting in reporting year 2017. The ART success rates described in this Federal Register notice shall replace those previously described in 2004.

    B. ART Procedures Among Patients Using Their Own Oocytes

    ART success rates for ART procedures among all patients using their own eggs will be defined as:

    1. The rate of live birth or singleton live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year or from the transfer of embryos created from oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure. Oocytes must have been retrieved in the year prior to the reporting year in order to allow for a full year to perform transfers of the retrieved oocytes (either in the prior reporting year or in the current reporting year). The live birth rate and singleton live birth rate will be presented according to the number of:

    a. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started from the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient.

    b. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient in which at least one oocyte was retrieved.

    c. All transfer procedures of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.

    2. The number of ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient presented according to the number of:

    a. Live births resulting from all transfers of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or transfers of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.

    Other rates for ART procedures among all patients using their own eggs may be defined as—

    3. The rate of cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, live birth, singleton live birth, multiple live birth, twin live birth, triplet or higher order live birth, preterm live birth, low birthweight live birth or term, normal birthweight and singleton live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year or the transfer of embryos created from oocytes retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure. These other rates may be presented according to the number of:

    a. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient.

    b. All ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient in which at least one oocyte was retrieved.

    c. All transfer procedures of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.

    d. All first, second, third, or more transfer procedures after retrieval of at least one oocyte from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure.

    Rates for ART procedures among new ART patients (i.e., patients that have never had a prior ART cycle ever) using their own oocytes will be defined as—

    4. The rate of live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes or embryos from all first intended oocyte retrievals presented according to the number of:

    a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures. For the purpose of this definition, the retrieval procedure must have started in the year prior to the reporting year.

    5. The rate of live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes or embryos from all first or second intended oocyte retrievals presented according to the number of:

    a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures. For the purpose of this definition, the retrieval procedure must have started in the year prior to the reporting year.

    6. The rate of live birth resulting from the transfer of oocytes or embryos from all intended oocyte retrievals presented according to the number of:

    a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures. For the purpose of this definition, the retrieval procedure must have started in the year prior to the reporting year.

    7. The number of ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient presented according to the number of:

    a. ART patients who reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures.

    8. The number of transfer procedures of at least one oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year, or of at least one embryo created from an oocyte retrieved from the patient in the year prior to the reporting year presented according to the number of:

    a. Ovarian stimulation or monitoring procedures started in the year prior to the reporting year with the intent to retrieve oocytes from the patient. For the purpose of this definition, egg or embryo transfer procedures must have started within 12 months of the start of the retrieval procedure. Also, ART patients must have reported at the start of the retrieval procedure that they had no prior ART stimulations and no prior frozen ART procedures.

    C. ART Procedures Among Patients Using Oocytes or Embryos From a Donor

    Success rates for ART procedures among patients using oocytes or embryos from a donor will be defined as—

    9. The rate of live birth or singleton live birth presented according to the number of:

    a. Transfer procedures of at least one donor egg, embryo created from a donor egg, or donated embryo started in the current reporting year.

    Other rates for ART procedures among patients using oocytes or embryos from a donor may also be defined as—

    10. The rate of cancellation, implantation, pregnancy, live birth, singleton live birth, multiple live birth, twin live birth, triplet or higher order live birth, preterm live birth, low birthweight live birth, or term, normal birthweight and singleton live birth presented according to the number of:

    a. ART procedures to prepare a patient (recipient) for the transfer of at least one donor egg, embryo created from a donor egg, or donated embryo, started in the current reporting year.

    b. Transfer procedures of at least one donor egg, embryo created from a donor egg, or donated embryo started in the current reporting year.

    D. ART Procedures Among All Patients and All Cycle Types

    ART reporting may also include:

    11. The number, average number or percentage of ART procedures or ART patients with certain characteristics, such as:

    a. Patient characteristics (e.g. patient age or reason for ART).

    b. ART procedure characteristics (e.g. type of treatment (fertility preservation, short term banking, in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer), stimulation protocol, source of the oocytes or embryos (patient or donor), the state of the oocytes or embryos (fresh or frozen), the intent of the procedure, the use of prenatal genetic diagnosis or screening, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, the use of assisted hatching, the use of a gestational carrier, the stage of the embryo at transfer, or the number of embryos transferred).

    All ART patient and procedure characteristics, ART success rates, and other rates for patients using their own oocytes as well as for patients using oocytes or embryos from a donor may be stratified by factors thought to influence the outcome of an ART procedure.

    12. Factors for stratification may include:

    a. Characteristics of the ART patient such as patient age or reason for ART.

    b. Characteristics of the ART procedure such as type of treatment (fertility preservation, short term banking, in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer), stimulation protocol, the source of the oocytes or embryos (patient or donor), the state of the oocytes or embryos (fresh or frozen), the intent of the procedure, the use of prenatal genetic diagnosis or screening, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, the use of assisted hatching, the use of a gestational carrier, the stage of the embryo at transfer, or the number of embryos transferred.

    Section II. Validation

    A description of external validation of clinic data conducted annually as a part of the ART surveillance program is described in “Reporting of Pregnancy Success Rates from Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Programs” (80 FR 51811). This notice explains, “If major data discrepancies are identified during data validation (e.g., lack of supporting information for pregnancy outcomes, underreporting cycles, etc.), CDC may re-select these ART programs for data validation during the following reporting year(s) to assess corrections of identified data errors.”

    Additionally, effective as of the 2019 reporting year, CDC will include a footnote in the annual ART Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report to identify clinics that are selected by CDC to participate in the validation process of the NASS data and that: 1) do participate, 2) do participate and have major data discrepancies identified through this process, and/or 3) decline to participate in the data validation process. CDC will include this footnote pending the availability of the necessary resources. This footnote is a new addition to the annual ART Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. Pursuant to the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992, the CDC is mandated to publish the clinic-specific success rates reported by each clinic. These footnotes will help to alert the public if there is evidence that the reported success rates may be of questionable quality, thereby increasing the transparency of the data reporting process.

    If a clinic is selected to participate in the NASS data validation process and does participate, the following footnote will be added:

    This clinic was visited for validation of (insert: reporting year) data. See Appendix A for additional information.

    If a clinic is selected to participate in the NASS data validation process, does participate, and major data discrepancies are identified for either the number of reported ART cycles or the ART pregnancy outcome, the following footnote will be added:

    This clinic was visited for validation of (insert: reporting year) data. Major data discrepancies were identified for (insert: “the number of reported cycles” or “the pregnancy outcomes” or “the number of reported cycles and the pregnancy outcomes”). See Appendix A for additional information.

    If a clinic is selected to participate in the NASS data validation process and declines to participate, the following footnote will be added:

    This clinic was selected for validation of (insert: reporting year) data, but declined to participate. See Appendix A for additional information.

    Appendix A of the ART Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report contains information about the validation of NASS data, including methods used for clinic selection, and displays aggregate validation results. Aggregate validation results include national discrepancy rates; clinic-specific discrepancy rates are not reported. Any footnote added to a clinic's success rates page in the ART Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report will appear only for the reporting year that the clinic was selected for validation; it will be removed the following reporting year.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11628 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers CMS-10599] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number __, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10599 Pre-Claim Review Demonstration for Home Health Services

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Pre-Claim Review Demonstration for Home Health Services; Use: Section 402(a)(1)(J) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1(a)(1)(J)) authorizes the Secretary to “develop or demonstrate improved methods for the investigation and prosecution of fraud in the provision of care or services under the health programs established by the Social Security Act (the Act).” Pursuant to this authority, the CMS seeks to develop and implement a Medicare demonstration project, which CMS believes will help assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of Medicare fraud occurring among Home Health Agencies (HHA) providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.

    This revised demonstration would help assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of potential Medicare fraud. The demonstration would help make sure that payments for home health services are appropriate through either pre-claim or postpayment review, thereby working towards the prevention and identification of potential fraud, waste, and abuse; the protection of Medicare Trust Funds from improper payments; and the reduction of Medicare appeals. CMS proposes initially implementing the demonstration in Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas with the option to expand to other states in the Palmetto/JM jurisdiction. Under this demonstration, CMS proposes to offer choices for providers to demonstrate their compliance with CMS' home health policies. Providers in the demonstration states may participate in either 100 percent pre-claim review or 100 percent postpayment review. These providers will continue to be subject to a review method until the HHA reaches the target affirmation or claim approval rate. Once a HHA reaches the target pre-claim review affirmation or post-payment review claim approval rate, it may choose to be relieved from claim reviews, except for a spot check of their claims to ensure continued compliance. Providers who do not wish to participate in either 100 percent pre-claim or postpayment reviews have the option to furnish home health services and submit the associated claim for payment without undergoing such reviews; however, they will receive a 25 percent payment reduction on all claims submitted for home health services and may be eligible for review by the Recovery Audit Contractors.

    The information required under this collection is required by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Under the pre-claim review option, HHA will send the pre-claim review request along with all required documentation to the Medicare contractor for review prior to submitting the final claim for payment. If a claim is submitted without a pre-claim review decision one file, the Medicare contractor will request the information from the HHA to determine if payment is appropriate. For the postpayment review option, the Medicare contractor will also request the information from the HHA provider who submitted the claim for payment from the Medicare program to determine if payment was appropriate. Form Number: CMS-10599 (OMB control number: 0938-1311); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profits); Number of Respondents: 941,287; Total Annual Responses: 1,330,980; Total Annual Hours: 670,375. (For questions regarding this collection contact Jennifer McMullen (410) 786-7635).

    Dated: May 23, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11492 Filed 5-29-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1636] Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs.” This guidance is intended to advise sponsors on the premarketing assessment of a drug's effect on blood pressure. Elevated blood pressure is known to increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death. The effect of a drug on blood pressure may therefore be an important consideration in benefit-risk assessment.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 30, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1636] for “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Norman Stockbridge, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4166, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 301-796-2240.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs.” Elevated blood pressure is known to increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, and death. The effect of a drug on blood pressure may therefore be an important consideration in benefit-risk assessment. This guidance is intended to advise sponsors on the premarketing assessment of a drug's effect on blood pressure.

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

    II. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11642 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1329] Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” FDA has developed this document to describe relevant information that should be included in complete test reports for non-clinical bench performance testing provided in a premarket submission (i.e., premarket approval (PMA) applications, humanitarian device exemption (HDE) applications, premarket notification (510(k)) submissions, investigational device exemption (IDE) applications, and De Novo classification requests). This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 30, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1329 for “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Wen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1529, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4913.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” FDA has developed this document to describe relevant information that should be included in complete test reports for non-clinical bench performance testing provided in a premarket submission (i.e., PMA applications, HDE applications, 510(k) submissions, IDE applications, and De Novo classification requests).

    Non-clinical bench performance testing is defined as performance testing that encompasses all bench testing and will be dependent upon the specifics of the actual device or device type. Non-clinical bench performance testing includes, but is not limited to, mechanical and biological engineering performance such as fatigue, wear, tensile strength, compression, and burst pressure; bench tests using animal or human tissue; and animal carcass or human cadaveric testing. Non-clinical bench performance testing excludes biocompatibility evaluation, sterilization, and animal in vivo evaluation.

    This draft guidance is intended to help ensure that clear and consistent information is provided in premarket submissions containing non-clinical bench performance testing. The information in this draft guidance is intended to be used in conjunction with other FDA guidance documents, including device-specific guidances.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Recommended Content and Format of Complete Test Reports for Non-Clinical Bench Performance Testing in Premarket Submissions” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 18011 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations and guidances have been approved by OMB as listed:

    21 CFR part or guidance Topic OMB control No. 807, Subpart E Premarket Notification 0910-0120 814, Subparts A Through E Premarket Approval 0910-0231 814, Subpart H Humanitarian Device Exemption 0910-0332 812 Investigational Device Exemption 0910-0078 De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation) De Novo Classification process 0910-0844 Dated: May 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11603 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0908] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information concerning the establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 30, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 30, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0908 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees OMB Control Number 0910-0581—Extension

    Sponsors are required to monitor studies evaluating new drugs, biologics, and devices (21 CFR 312.50 and 312.56 for drugs and biologics, and 21 CFR 812.40 and 812.46 for devices). Various individuals and groups play different roles in clinical trial monitoring. One such group is a data monitoring committee (DMC), appointed by a sponsor to evaluate the accumulating outcome data in some trials. A clinical trial DMC is a group of individuals with pertinent expertise that reviews on a regular basis accumulating data from one or more ongoing clinical trials. The DMC advises the sponsor regarding the continuing safety of current trial subjects and those yet to be recruited to the trial, as well as the continuing validity and scientific merit of the trial.

    The guidance document referenced in this document is intended to assist sponsors of clinical trials in determining when a DMC is needed for monitoring a study and how such committees should operate. The guidance addresses the roles, responsibilities, and operating procedures of DMCs and describes certain reporting and recordkeeping responsibilities, including the following: (1) Sponsor reporting to FDA on DMC recommendations related to safety; (2) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for DMCs; (3) DMC meeting records; (4) sponsor notification to the DMC regarding waivers; and (5) DMC reports based on meeting minutes to the sponsor.

    1. Sponsor Reporting to FDA on DMC Recommendations Related to Safety

    The requirement of the sponsor to report DMC recommendations related to serious adverse events in an expedited manner in clinical trials of new drugs (§ 312.32(c) (21 CFR 312.32(c))) would not apply when the DMC recommendation is related to an excess of events not classifiable as serious. Nevertheless, the Agency recommends in the guidance that sponsors inform FDA about all recommendations related to the safety of the investigational product whether or not the adverse event in question meets the definition of “serious.”

    2. SOPs for DMCs

    In the guidance, FDA recommends that sponsors establish procedures to do the following things:

    • Assess potential conflicts of interest of proposed DMC members;

    • Ensure that those with serious conflicts of interest are not included in the DMC;

    • Provide disclosure to all DMC members of any potential conflicts that are not thought to impede objectivity and, thus, would not preclude service on the DMC;

    • Identify and disclose any concurrent service of any DMC member on other DMCs of the same, related, or competing products;

    • Ensure separation, and designate a different statistician to advise on the management of the trial, if the primary trial statistician takes on the responsibility for interim analysis and reporting to the DMC; and

    • Minimize the risks of bias that are associated with an arrangement under which the primary trial statistician takes on the responsibility for interim analysis and reporting to the DMC, if it appears infeasible or highly impractical for any other statistician to take over responsibilities related to trial management.

    3. DMC Meeting Records

    The Agency recommends in the guidance that the DMC or the group preparing the interim reports to the DMC maintain all meeting records. This information should be submitted to FDA with the clinical study report (21 CFR 314.50(d)(5)(ii)).

    4. Sponsor Notification to the DMC Regarding Waivers

    The sponsor must report to FDA certain serious and unexpected adverse events in drugs and biologics trials (§ 312.32) and unanticipated adverse device effects in the case of device trials (21 CFR 812.150(b)(1)). The Agency recommends in the guidance that sponsors notify DMCs about any waivers granted by FDA for expedited reporting of certain serious events.

    5. DMC Reports of Meeting Minutes to the Sponsor

    The Agency recommends in the guidance that DMCs should issue a written report to the sponsor based on the DMC meeting minutes. Reports to the sponsor should include only those data generally available to the sponsor. The sponsor may convey the relevant information in this report to other interested parties, such as study investigators. Meeting minutes or other information that include discussion of confidential data would not be provided to the sponsor.

    Description of the Respondents: The submission and data collection recommendations described in this document affect sponsors of clinical trials and DMCs.

    Burden Estimate: Table 1 of this document provides the burden estimate of the annual reporting burden for the information to be submitted in accordance with the guidance. Table 2 of this document provides the burden estimate of the annual recordkeeping burden for the information to be maintained in accordance with the guidance. Table 3 of this document provides the burden estimate of the annual third-party disclosure burden for the information to be submitted in accordance with the guidance.

    Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Third-Party Disclosure Burdens: Based on information from FDA review divisions, FDA estimates there are approximately 740 clinical trials with DMCs regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. FDA estimates that the average length of a clinical trial is 2 years, resulting in an annual estimate of 370 clinical trials. Because FDA has no information on which to project a change in the use of DMCs, FDA estimates that the number of clinical trials with DMCs will not change significantly. For purposes of this information collection, FDA estimates that each sponsor is responsible for approximately 10 trials, resulting in an estimated 37 sponsors that are affected by the guidance annually.

    Based on information provided to FDA by sponsors that have typically used DMCs for the kinds of studies for which this guidance recommends them, FDA estimates that the majority of sponsors have already prepared SOPs for DMCs, and only a minimum amount of time is necessary to revise or update them for use for other clinical studies. FDA receives very few requests for waivers regarding expedited reporting of certain serious events; therefore, FDA has estimated one respondent per year to account for the rare instance a request may be made. Based on FDA's experience with clinical trials using DMCs, FDA estimates that the sponsor on average would issue two interim reports per clinical trial to the DMC. FDA estimates that the DMCs would hold two meetings per year per clinical trial resulting in the issuance of two DMC reports of meeting minutes to the sponsor. One set of both of the meeting records should be maintained per clinical trial.

    The “Average Burden per Response” and “Average Burden per Recordkeeping” are based on FDA's experience with comparable recordkeeping and reporting provisions applicable to FDA regulated industry. The “Average Burden per Response” includes the time the respondent would spend reviewing, gathering, and preparing the information to be submitted to the DMC, FDA, or the sponsor. The “Average Burden per Recordkeeping” includes the time to record, gather, and maintain the information.

    The information collection provisions in the guidance for 21 CFR 312.30, 312.32, 312.38, 312.55, and 312.56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; 21 CFR 314.50 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and 21 CFR 812.35 and 812.150 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Section of guidance/reporting activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    5. Sponsor reporting to FDA on DMC recommendations related to safety 37 1 37 0.50 (30 minutes) 18.5 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 Section of guidance/recordkeeping activity Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    4.1. and 6.4 SOPs for DMCs 37 1 37 8 296 4.4.3.2. DMC meeting records 370 1 370 2 740 Total 1,036 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 3—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Section of guidance/disclosure activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    4.4.1.2. Sponsor notification to the DMC regarding waivers 1 1 1 0.25 (15 minutes) 0.25 4.4.3.2. DMC reports of meeting minutes to the sponsor 370 2 740 1 740 Total 740.25 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11647 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1609] Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; International Council for Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; International Council for Harmonisation.” The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The draft guidance, which consists of a Core Guideline and an Annex, provides a framework to facilitate the management of post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes for new and marketed pharmaceutical drug substances and drug products, including marketed chemical and biotechnological/biological products.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 15, 2018, to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1609 for “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regarding the guidance: Mahesh Ramanadham, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3272; or Ingrid Markovic, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8115.

    Regarding the ICH: Amanda Roache, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1176, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4548.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory Agencies.

    ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.

    The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidance.

    In November 2017, the ICH Assembly endorsed the draft guidance entitled “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management” and agreed that the guidance should be made available for public comment. The draft guidance is the product of the Q12 Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Q12 Expert Working Group.

    The guidance provides guidance on post-approval chemistry, manufacturing, and controls changes for new and marketed pharmaceutical drug substances and drug products. The guidance describes regulatory tools and enablers, along with associated guiding principles, that are intended to enhance the management of post-approval changes and transparency between industry and regulatory authorities, encouraging innovation and continual improvement. The guidance is intended to demonstrate how increased product and process knowledge can contribute to a reduction in the number of regulatory submissions needed for such post-approval changes. Specifically, effective implementation of the tools and enablers described in the guideline should enhance industry's ability to manage many postapproval changes effectively under the firm's Pharmaceutical Quality System with less need for extensive regulatory oversight prior to implementation. The extent of operational and regulatory flexibility is subject to product and process understanding (ICH Q8 and Q11), application of risk management principles (ICH Q9), and an effective pharmaceutical quality system (ICH Q10).

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11641 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Solicitation of Written Comments on the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Implementation Work Group Draft Report and Draft Recommendations for Consideration by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) was established in 1987 to comply with Title XXI of the Public Health Service Act. Its purpose is to advise and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to program responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) has been designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) as the Director of the National Vaccine Program. The National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) is located within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NVPO provides leadership and fosters collaboration among the various federal agencies involved in vaccine and immunization activities. The NVPO also supports the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The NVAC advises and makes recommendations to the ASH in his capacity as the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to vaccine program responsibilities.

    The ASH charged the NVAC in February 2018 to establish a work group to produce a brief report by June 2018 on recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve Human Papillomavirus (HPV) coverage rates. Through a series of conference calls, electronic communication, and public discussion at the May 3, 2018, NVAC public meeting, the work group identified a number of draft recommendations for consideration by the NVAC. The work group's draft report and recommendations will inform NVAC deliberations as it finalizes recommendations for transmittal to the ASH.

    On behalf of NVAC, NVPO is soliciting public comment on the draft report and draft recommendations from a variety of stakeholders, including the general public, for consideration by the NVAC as they develop their final recommendations to the ASH. It is anticipated that the draft report and draft recommendations, as revised with consideration given to public comment and stakeholder input, will be presented to the NVAC for adoption in June 2018 at the quarterly NVAC meeting.

    DATES:

    Comments for consideration by the NVAC should be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    (1) The draft report and draft recommendations are available on the web at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/index.html.

    (2) Electronic responses may be sent to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Captain Angela Shen, Designated Federal Officer, National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: 202-690-5566; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On June 9, 2015, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) issued a report “Overcoming Barriers to Low HPV Vaccine Uptake in the United States: Recommendations from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee.” This report provided recommendations to the ASH on how to increase Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in young adolescents by reviewing the current state of HPV immunization, understanding the root cause(s) for the observed relatively low vaccine uptake (both initiation and series completion), and identifying existing best practices. Since the original NVAC HPV report, substantial progress led to policy and program changes and advances in research. To build on the substantial progress made toward increasing HPV vaccination coverage rates, the ASH charged the NVAC in February 2018 to establish a work group to produce a brief report by June 2018 on recommendations to “strengthen the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve HPV coverage rates.” The ASH specifically requested the NVAC to consider the following:

    (1) Many national organizations are currently supporting HPV efforts. Are there additional national organizations that might contribute to increasing HPV vaccination coverage?

    (2) At the state level, many states have formed coalitions to support HPV vaccination efforts. Is there general guidance for states that do not yet have coalitions?

    (3) Integrated health care delivery networks can successfully integrate comprehensive quality improvement approaches to increase vaccination coverage rates. How can state immunization programs and coalitions engage with health systems to work together on improving HPV vaccination coverage?

    (4) Please specify recommendations on how to meet the needs of providers in rural areas.

    The NVAC established the Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Implementation Work Group in February 2018, a work group tasked to engage with a wide-range of implementation partners from across all sectors (e.g., government, industry, health systems, associations, academia, and non-profit) to inform NVAC's work and these recommendations.

    The NVAC draft report highlights the progress made toward increasing HPV vaccination coverage rates, since the 2015 NVAC report. The recommendations detail how the ASH can support HHS activities to strengthen the effectiveness of national, state, and local efforts to improve HPV coverage rates.

    II. Request for Comment

    NVPO, on behalf of the NVAC HPV Vaccination Implementation Work Group, requests input on the draft report and draft recommendations. Please limit your comments to three (3) pages.

    III. Potential Responders

    HHS invites input from a broad range of stakeholders including individuals and organizations that have interests U.S. vaccine and immunization efforts and the role of HHS in advancing those efforts.

    Examples of potential responders include, but are not limited to, the following:

    —General public; —advocacy groups, non-profit organizations, and public interest organizations; —academics, professional societies, and healthcare organizations; —public health officials and immunization program managers; —physician and non-physician providers that administer immunization services, including pharmacists; and —representatives from the private sector.

    When responding, please self-identify with any of the above or other categories (include all that apply) and your name. Anonymous submissions will not be considered. Written submissions should not exceed three (3) pages. Please do not send proprietary, commercial, financial, business, confidential, trade secret, or personal information.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Roula Sweis, Deputy Director, National Vaccine Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11745 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 AGENCY:

    Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the next meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 (Committee) regarding the development of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030. This meeting will be held online via webinar and is open to the public. The Committee will discuss the nation's health promotion and disease prevention objectives and will provide recommendations to improve health status and reduce health risks for the nation by the year 2030. The Committee will further develop recommendations regarding setting targets for the Healthy People 2030 objectives and recommendations regarding the role of law and policy, systems science, health literacy, health promotion, health and well-being, summary measures, and health equity in Healthy People 2030. Pursuant to the Committee's charter, the Committee's advice must assist the Secretary in reducing the number of objectives while ensuring that the selection criteria identifies the most critical public health issues that are high-impact priorities supported by current national data.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on July 10, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held online via webinar. To register to attend the meeting, please visit the Healthy People website at http://www.healthypeople.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emmeline Ochiai, Designated Federal Official, Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Room LL-100, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8255 (telephone), (240) 453-8281 (fax). Additional information is available on the Healthy People website at http://www.healthypeople.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/history-development/healthy-people-2030-advisory-committee.

    Purpose of Meeting: Through the Healthy People initiative, HHS leverages scientific insights and lessons from the past decade, along with new knowledge of current data, trends, and innovations, to develop the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Healthy People provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. Since 1979, Healthy People has set and monitored national health objectives that meet a broad range of health needs, encourage collaboration across sectors, guide individuals toward making informed health decisions, and measure the impact of our prevention and health promotion activities. Healthy People 2030 health objectives will reflect assessments of major risks to health and wellness, changing public health priorities, and emerging technologies related to our nation's health preparedness and prevention.

    Public Participation at Meeting: Members of the public are invited to join the online Committee meeting. There will be no opportunity for oral public comments during this online Committee meeting. However, written comments are welcome throughout the entire development process of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030 and may be emailed to [email protected]

    To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People website at http://www.healthypeople.gov. Participation in the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum webinar capacity is reached, and must be completed by 9:00 a.m. ET on July 10, 2018. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed capacity, and those individuals will be contacted as additional space for the meeting becomes available. Registration questions may be directed to [email protected]

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300u and 42 U.S.C. 217a. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, (Disease Prevention and Health Promotion).
    [FR Doc. 2018-11600 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group; Clinical Oncology Study Section.

    Date: June 25-26, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westgate Hotel, 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Malaya Chatterjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-806-2515, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Drug Discovery for the Nervous System Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel Suites Alexandria—Old Town, 625 First St., Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Mary Custer, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4148, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1164, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Neurodifferentiation, Plasticity, Regeneration and Rhythmicity Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Villa Florence Hotel, 225 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Joanne T. Fujii, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4184, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1178, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1—Basic Translational Integrated Review Group; Tumor Cell Biology Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites by Hilton Alexandria Old Town, 1900 Diagonal Rd., Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Charles Morrow, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6202, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9850, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group; Molecular Neurogenetics Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The St. Regis Washington DC, 923 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

    Contact Person: Mary G. Schueler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-915-6301, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Diseases and Pathophysiology of the Visual System Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Nataliya Gordiyenko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5202, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.435.1265, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Pathobiology of Kidney Disease Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 E Wacker, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2188, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1198, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences Integrated Review Group; Myocardial Ischemia and Metabolism Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Kimm Hamann, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4118A, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-5575, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Biobehavioral and Behavioral Processes Integrated Review Group; Cognition and Perception Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Palomar, 2121 P Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Andrea B. Kelly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3184, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 455-1761, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Systemic Injury by Environmental Exposure.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crowne Plaza National Airport, 1480 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Meenakshisundar Ananthanarayanan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4200, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-1234, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences Integrated Review Group; Integrative Nutrition and Metabolic Processes Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Gregory S. Shelness, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6156, Bethesda, MD 20892-7892, 301-755-4335, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Population Sciences and Epidemiology Integrated Review Group; Cancer, Heart, and Sleep Epidemiology A Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Denise Wiesch, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3138, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 437-3478, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics Integrated Review Group; Genetics of Health and Disease Study Section.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Contact Person: Cheryl M. Corsaro, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2204, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1045, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 25, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11724 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel; NIDCR Secondary Data Analysis.

    Date: June 7, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: NIDCR, Democracy One, Conference Room 651, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Guo He Zhang, MPH, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 672, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 24, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11619 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Bioengineering Sciences and Technologies.

    Date: June 25, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nitsa Rosenzweig, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, MSC 7760, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 404-7419, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Immunology.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Liying Guo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4016F, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0908, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM-17-027: Tissue Mapping Centers for the Human BioMolecular Atlas Program (U54).

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: James J. Li, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-806-8065, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Exosomes: From Biogenesis and Secretion to the Early Pathogenesis of Alzheimer's Disease.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Afia Sultana, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4189, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7083, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, and Bioengineering.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Raj K. Krishnaraju, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6190, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1047, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-15-358-Molecular and Cellular Causal Aspects of Alzheimer's Disease.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: St. Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Afia Sultana, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4189, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7083, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Medical Imaging.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Leonid V. Tsap, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2507, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Psycho/Neuropathology Lifespan Development, STEM Education.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton St. Louis, 100 Carondelet Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63105.

    Contact Person: Elia E. Femia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 3108, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7189, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cardiovascular Sciences.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Chicago/Magnificent Mile Suites, 198 E Delaware Pl., Chicago, IL 60611.

    Contact Person: Margaret Chandler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4126, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1743, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; BRAIN Initiative: Targeted BRAIN Circuits Projects.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Darcy Washington DC, Curio Collection, Hilton, 1515 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20005.

    Contact Person: Kirk Thompson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5184, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1242, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Pathophysiological Basis of Addiction, Behavior Regulation, and Neurodegeneration.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Paula Elyse Schauwecker, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-760-8207, s[email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Gastrointestinal Immunology and Diseases.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2186, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1243, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 25, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11725 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Non-HIV Microbial Diagnostic and Detection Research.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Whyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 3200, MSC 7808 Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Cellular and Molecular Biology of Complex Brain Disorders.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westin Grand, 2350 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Brian H. Scott, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7490, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Hypersensitivity, Allergies and Mucosal Immunology (HAMI).

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites Denver Airport, 7001 Yampa Street, Denver, CO 80249.

    Contact Person: Alok Mulky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4203, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3566, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Non-HIV Diagnostics, Food Safety, Sterilization/Disinfection, and Bioremediation.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Whyndham Grand Chicago Riverfront, 71 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm. 3200, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Clinical Neurophysiology, Devices, Neuroprosthetics, and Biosensors.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westin St. Francis, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Cristina Backman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, ETTN IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-480-9069, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Drug Discovery for Aging, Neuropsychiatric and Neurologic Disorders.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The St. Regis Washington DC, 923 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

    Contact Person: Aurea D. De Sousa, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-0000, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Genes, Genomes, and Genetics.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW, Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Michael L. Bloom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6187, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0132, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Exploration of Antimicrobial Therapeutics and Resistance.

    Date: June 28-29, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Susan Daum, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Room 3202, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7233, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Orthopedic, Skeletal Muscle and Oral Sciences.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Aftab A. Ansari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4108, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-237-9931, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jana Drgonova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-2549, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Integrative Nutrition and Metabolic Processes.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221, 22nd Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Elaine Sierra-Rivera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, EMNR IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6182, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2514, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Focus on Antimicrobial Drug Development and Resistance.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231.

    Contact Person: Guangyong Ji, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3211, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1146, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Vaccines, Host Defense and Inflammation.

    Date: June 28, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Betty Hayden, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4206, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1223, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: May 25, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11722 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0124] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0124 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0012. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2012-0012;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2012-0012 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-821D; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or Households. The information collected on this form is used by USCIS to determine eligibility of certain individuals who were brought to the United States as children and meet the following guidelines to be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals:

    1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

    2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday, and established residence at that time;

    3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

    4. Were present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;

    5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

    6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and

    7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

    These individuals will be considered for relief from removal from the United States or from being placed into removal proceedings as part of the deferred action for childhood arrivals process. Those who submit requests with USCIS and demonstrate that they meet the threshold guidelines may have removal action in their case deferred for a period of two years, subject to renewal (if not terminated), based on an individualized, case by case assessment of the individual's equities. Only those individuals who can demonstrate, through verifiable documentation, that they meet the threshold guidelines will be considered for deferred action for childhood arrivals, except in exceptional circumstances.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-821D initial requests is 45,645 and the estimated hour burden per response is 136,935 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-821D renewal requests is 427,207 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1,281,621hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,418,556 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $50,415,480.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Samantha L Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11704 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0069] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0069 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0042. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2006-0042;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2006-0042 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-602; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The data collected on the Application by Refugee for Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds, Form I-602, will be used by USCIS to determine eligibility for waivers, and to report to Congress the reasons for granting waivers.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-602 is 190 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 190 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $23,520.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Samantha L Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11706 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0060] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Medical Certification for Disability Exception AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0060 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0021. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2008-0021;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0021 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Medical Certification for Disability Exceptions.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-648; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS uses the Form N-648 to substantiate a claim for an exception to the requirements of section 312(a) of the Act. Only medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy, or clinical psychologists licensed to practice in the United States are authorized to certify Form N-648.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-648 is 4,138 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 8,276 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $294,129.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Samantha L Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11703 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0007] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Alien Change of Address Card AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 2, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0007 in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2018, at 83 FR 6871, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive one comment in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0018 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Alien Change of Address Card.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: AR-11; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The Form AR-11SR, Alien's Change of Address Card, has been used to report changes of address of aliens subject to “special registration” requirements contained in INA 263 and 8 CFR 264.1(f).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection AR-11 (paper) is 170,306 and the estimated hour burden per response is .20 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collect AR-11 (electronic) is 1,075,917 and the estimated hour burden per response is .17 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 216,967 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $638,648.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Samantha L Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11705 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N060; 91100-3740-GRNT 7C] Announcement of Public Meeting of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North American Wetlands Conservation Council will meet in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, to select U.S. Standard grant proposals for reporting to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This meeting is open to the public, and interested persons may present oral or written statements.

    DATES:

    Meeting: The meeting is scheduled for June 13, 2018, at 8:00 a.m. Central Daylight Saving Time.

    Participation: If you wish to participate in the meeting via calling in, making a presentation, or submitting information beforehand, contact the Council Coordinator (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than June 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting location: The meeting will take place in the Prairie Wetlands Learning Center, 602 Minnesota State Hwy. 210 East, Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537. If you are interested in presenting information at the meeting or participating via telephone, contact the Council Coordinator by the date specified in DATES.

    Submitting information: Comments must be submitted by the date specified in DATES by one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike MS: MB, Falls Church, VA 22041.

    Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Mott, Council Coordinator, by phone at 703-358-1784. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 during normal business hours. In addition, FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412), the State-private-Federal North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The seven-member Commission was established in 1929 by the passage of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.) primarily to consider and approve areas of land or water recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for purchase by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1989, the Commission acquired the additional responsibility to approve project funding under NAWCA.

    The NAWCA program operates in two cycles per year. Each cycle, eligible proposals are reviewed and ranked by the nine-member Council. NAWCA provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. These projects must involve long-term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all wetlands-associated migratory birds. Project proposal due dates, application instructions, and eligibility requirements are available on the NAWCA website at www.fws.gov/birds/grants/north-american-wetland-conservation-act.php.

    Public Input Submitting Written Information or Questions

    Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions to be considered during the meeting. If you wish to submit a written statement so that information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to the meeting, you must contact the Council Coordinator by the date in DATES. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

    Giving an Oral Presentation

    Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation during the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 10 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator by the date in DATES, in writing (preferably via email; see ADDRESSES), to be placed on the public speaker list. Nonregistered public speakers will not be considered during the meeting. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, are invited to submit written statements to the Council within 30 days following the meeting.

    Meeting Minutes

    Summary minutes of the Council meeting will be maintained by the Council Coordinator (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Meeting notes will be available by contacting the Council Coordinator within 30 days following the meeting. Personal copies may be purchased for the cost of duplication.

    Dated: May 11, 2018. Jerome Ford, Assistant Director, Migratory Birds.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11601 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-FAC-2018-N061; FXFR13360900000-FF09F14000-167] Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Meeting AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.

    DATES:

    The ANS Task Force will meet Tuesday through Thursday, June 12-14, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public; for security purposes, signup is required. For more information, contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting location: The ANS Task Force meeting will take place at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Building 3, Room 4527, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (phone: 301-713-0174).

    Comment submission: You may submit written comments in advance of the meeting by emailing them to the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Pasko, Executive Secretary, ANS Task Force, by telephone at (703) 358-2466, or by email at [email protected] If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The ANS Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (NANPCA; 16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), is composed of 13 Federal and 15 ex-officio members, and is co-chaired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.

    Meeting Agenda

    • Update on the U.S. Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database.

    • Update from the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee.

    • Sessions to evaluate the Task Force and regional panel accomplishments and discuss strategies to further advance the Task Force mission.

    • Public comment period.

    The final agenda and other related meeting information will be posted on the Task Force website at http://anstaskforce.gov. Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary and will be available for public inspection within 90 days after the meeting at http://anstaskforce.gov.

    Public Input

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. John J. Schmerfeld, Acting Assistant Director for Fish and Aquatic Conservation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11735 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2018-N079; FXES11130600000-189-FF01E00000] Endangered Species; Receipt of Recovery Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.

    DATES:

    We must receive your written comments on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability and comment submission: Submit requests for copies of the applications and related documents and submit any comments by one of the following methods. All requests and comments should specify the applicant name(s) and application number(s) (e.g., TE-XXXXXX):

    Email: [email protected]

    U.S. Mail: Program Manager, Restoration and Endangered Species Classification, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colleen Henson, Recovery Permit Coordinator, Ecological Services, (503) 231-6131 (phone); [email protected] (email). Individuals who are hearing or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The requested permits would allow the applicants to conduct activities intended to promote recovery of species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA.

    Background

    With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities that constitute take of listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. The ESA's definition of “take” includes such activities as pursuing, harassing, trapping, capturing, or collecting in addition to hunting, shooting, harming, wounding, or killing.

    A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Permit Applications Available for Review and Comment

    Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.

    Application No. Applicant, city, state Species Location Activity Type of take Permit action TE-163899-2 Papahanaumo-kuakea Marine National Monument, Honolulu, HI Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis), Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), Pritchardia lanigera (lo`ulu), Sesbania tomentosa (ohai), Solanum nelsonii (popolo) HI Animals: Survey/monitor, band, measure, vaccinate, biosample, social attraction, and/or salvage
  • Plants: Collect seeds, fruits, cuttings, and plants; maintain and monitor; propagate, outplant, direct seed, transplant, and/or salvage
  • Animals: Capture, handle, release, biosample
  • Plants: Remove and reduce to possession
  • Amend.
    TE-014497-6 Haleakala National Park, Makawao, HI Add the following species: Crested honeycreeper or akohekohe (Palmeria dolei), Maui parrotbill or kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), `I`iwi (Drepanis coccinea) HI Survey, monitor, and salvage Playback calls and disturbance Amend. TE-42195A-2 Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas, Apra Heights, GU Mariana common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus guami), Micronesian megapode (Megapodius laperouse), Nightingale reed warbler (Acrocephalus luscinia), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Eugenia bryanii (No Common Name (NCN)), Hedyotis megalantha (Paudedo), Heritiera longipetiolata (Ufa-halomtano), Phyllanthus saffordii (NCN), Psychotria malaspinae (Aplokating-palaoan), Serianthes nelsonii (Hayun Iagu (=(Guam), Tronkon guafi (Rota)), Solanum guamense (Berenghenas halomtanu), Tinospora homosepala (NCN) GU, MP Birds: Survey, monitor, and salvage
  • Sea Turtles: Survey and monitor, biosample, tag, genetic analysis, capture, handle, release, collect morphometric data, and salvage
  • Plants: Collect seeds and seedlings, propagate, cultivate, outplant, and salvage
  • Birds: Playback calls and disturbance
  • Sea turtles: Capture, handle, release, survey, monitor, tag, and biosample
  • Plants: Remove and reduce to possession
  • Amend.
    TE-45531B-1 Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI Akekee (Loxops caeruleirostris), Akikiki (Oreomystis bairdi), Maui parrotbill or kiwikiu (Pseudonestor xanthophrys), Palila or honeycreeper (Loxioides bailleui), Smal