Federal Register Vol. 83, No.106,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 106 (June 1, 2018)

Page Range25327-25543
FR Document

83_FR_106
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 25343 - Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent With Merit System PrinciplesPDF
83 FR 25341 - Exemption From Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal LandsPDF
83 FR 25496 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 25335 - Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency in Taxpayer-Funded Union Time UsePDF
83 FR 25329 - Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost- Reducing Approaches To Federal Sector Collective BargainingPDF
83 FR 25327 - Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2018PDF
83 FR 25456 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 25446 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
83 FR 25471 - Accreditation and Approval of NMK Resources, INC., (Thorofare, NJ), as a Commercial Laboratory and GaugerPDF
83 FR 25425 - Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Quality Control Integrity and ModernizationPDF
83 FR 25375 - Group Registration of NewspapersPDF
83 FR 25479 - Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Liquor Ordinance; Repeal and ReplacePDF
83 FR 25461 - Medicare & Medicaid Programs, and Other Program Initiatives, and Priorities; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), June 20, 2018PDF
83 FR 25422 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; AL; Redesignation of the Etowah County Unclassifiable AreaPDF
83 FR 25390 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; SC; Redesignation of the Greenville-Spartanburg Unclassifiable AreaPDF
83 FR 25451 - Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods; Designation of One New Reference MethodPDF
83 FR 25460 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25475 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Addressing the Issuance of Incidental Take Permits for Four Wind Energy Projects in Hawai`iPDF
83 FR 25463 - Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2017 Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)PDF
83 FR 25428 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 126-Reno, Nevada; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Tesla, Inc. (Lithium-Ion Batteries, Electric Motors, and Stationary Energy Storage Systems); Sparks and McCarran, NevadaPDF
83 FR 25428 - Approval of Subzone Status, AGCO Corporation, Jackson and Round Lake, MinnesotaPDF
83 FR 25436 - Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) ReviewsPDF
83 FR 25429 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative ReviewPDF
83 FR 25436 - Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset ReviewPDF
83 FR 25431 - Revisions and Clarifications to User Fees for Export and Investment Promotion Services/EventsPDF
83 FR 25496 - Notice of Public Meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee and Preparations for Upcoming International Telecommunications MeetingsPDF
83 FR 25445 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 25470 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
83 FR 25444 - Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 25495 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Quarterly Narrative Progress Report, Employment and Training Supplemental Budget Request ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 25349 - Simplified Cost Accounting and Other Actions To Reduce Paperwork in the Summer Food Service ProgramPDF
83 FR 25463 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25428 - Notice of Public Meeting of the South Carolina Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25427 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Wisconsin Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Civil Rights Concerns in the StatePDF
83 FR 25452 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects ReportingPDF
83 FR 25466 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human FoodPDF
83 FR 25440 - Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 25361 - General Administrative Regulations; Administrative Remedies for Non-CompliancePDF
83 FR 25455 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension Without Change of an Existing Collection; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 25497 - In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of Al-Nusrah Front (and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as AmendedPDF
83 FR 25464 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25493 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
83 FR 25496 - In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of Al-Nusrah Front (and Other Aliases) as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
83 FR 25448 - Notice of Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Huawei From the Department of Energy External Power Supply Test ProcedurePDF
83 FR 25445 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25443 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25441 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25458 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 25446 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25450 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
83 FR 25392 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (Hidden Lake Bluecurls) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened PlantsPDF
83 FR 25438 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Coast Boulevard Improvements Project, La Jolla, CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 25465 - Waivers of the Single, Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Requirement; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 25468 - Development of a Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 25494 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
83 FR 25458 - Information Collection; Novation/Change of Name RequirementsPDF
83 FR 25457 - Information Collection; Incentive ContractsPDF
83 FR 25456 - Information Collection; Authorized NegotiatorsPDF
83 FR 25498 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Anti-Dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber From CanadaPDF
83 FR 25497 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States-Countervailing Measures on Softwood Lumber From CanadaPDF
83 FR 25370 - Recurring Safety Zone; Rice's Landing Riverfest, Rice's Landing, PAPDF
83 FR 25366 - Special Local Regulation; Lake of the Ozarks, Bagnell, MOPDF
83 FR 25451 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 25370 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sinepuxent Bay Harry Kelley (Route 50) Bridge, Ocean City, MDPDF
83 FR 25369 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel and Long Creek, Nassau County, NYPDF
83 FR 25369 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, Bronx, New YorkPDF
83 FR 25371 - Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile Markers 179 to 180, St. Louis, MOPDF
83 FR 25499 - Special Medical Advisory Group; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 25472 - Notice of Availability of the Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact StatementPDF
83 FR 25441 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25442 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 25444 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25382 - Delegation of Authority to the States of Iowa; Kansas; Missouri; Nebraska; Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; and City of Omaha, NE, for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Including Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) StandardsPDF
83 FR 25453 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate UsesPDF
83 FR 25469 - Meeting of the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force; AmendmentPDF
83 FR 25456 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 25427 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss the Barriers to Voting ReportPDF
83 FR 25426 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory Committee To Discuss the Memorandum on Access to Voting in the State of AlabamaPDF
83 FR 25484 - Indian Gaming; Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Taking Effect in the State of ConnecticutPDF
83 FR 25438 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public MeetingsPDF
83 FR 25442 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Homeland Defense Radar in HawaiiPDF
83 FR 25405 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25419 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25412 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25417 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25490 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine; Institution of Five-Year ReviewsPDF
83 FR 25488 - Sodium Hexametaphosphate From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
83 FR 25485 - Xanthan Gum From China; Institution of a Five-Year ReviewPDF
83 FR 25502 - Compliance With Statutory Program Integrity RequirementsPDF
83 FR 25373 - Safety Zone; Offshore Barrier Test, Lake Huron, North Lakeport, MIPDF
83 FR 25536 - Limited Extension of Select Compliance Dates for Occupational Exposure to Beryllium in General IndustryPDF
83 FR 25365 - Technical Amendments to Rules of Practice and Rules of Organization; Conduct and Ethics; and Information and RequestsPDF
83 FR 25378 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
83 FR 25375 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional Haze Progress ReportPDF
83 FR 25361 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Series Airplanes; Installed Rechargeable Lithium BatteriesPDF
83 FR 25415 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH)PDF
83 FR 25363 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 25408 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 25410 - Airworthiness Directives; Austro Engine GmbH EnginesPDF
83 FR 25484 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and a Notice of Segregation for the Proposed Yellow Pine Solar Project, Clark County, NVPDF

Issue

83 106 Friday, June 1, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25441 2018-11763 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25441-25442 2018-11790 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25458-25460 2018-11789 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25460-25461 2018-11823 Meetings: Medicare and Medicaid Programs, and Other Program Initiatives, and Priorities; Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education, 25461-25463 2018-11837 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25463-25465 2018-11796 2018-11805 Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2017 Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 25463-25464 2018-11820 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Alabama Advisory Committee, 25426-25427 2018-11741 Louisiana Advisory Committee, 25427 2018-11742 South Carolina Advisory Committee, 25428 2018-11804 Wisconsin Advisory Committee, 25427-25428 2018-11803 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Harlem River, Bronx, NY, 25369 2018-11770 Reynolds Channel and Long Creek, Nassau County, NY, 25369-25370 2018-11771 Sinepuxent Bay Harry Kelley (Route 50) Bridge, Ocean City, MD, 25370 2018-11772 Safety Zones: Offshore Barrier Test, Lake Huron, North Lakeport, MI, 25373-25375 2018-11646 Rice's Landing Riverfest, Rice's Landing, PA, 25370-25371 2018-11775 Upper Mississippi River, Mile Markers 179 to 180, St. Louis, MO, 25371-25373 2018-11768 Special Local Regulations: Lake of the Ozarks, Bagnell, MO, 25366-25369 2018-11774 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress RULES Group Registration of Newspapers, 25375 2018-11841 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25443-25446 2018-11760 2018-11788 2018-11791 2018-11792 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Authorized Negotiators, 25456-25457 2018-11778 Incentive Contracts, 25457 2018-11779 Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 25458 2018-11780 Charter Renewals: Board of Advisors to the Presidents of the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College, 25442 2018-11762 Federal Advisory Committees, 25445-25446 2018-11810 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Construction and Operation of a Homeland Defense Radar in Hawaii, 25442-25443 2018-11733 Meetings: Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, 25444 2018-11808
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Matching Program, 25446-25448 2018-11856 Energy Department Energy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25450-25451 2018-11787 Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Huawei From the Department of Energy External Power Supply Test Procedure, 25448-25450 2018-11793 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; Regional Haze Progress Report, 25375-25378 2018-11566 South Carolina; Redesignation of the Greenville-Spartanburg Unclassifiable Area, 25390-25392 2018-11833 Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 25378-25382 2018-11570 New Source Performance Standards, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards: Iowa; Kansas; Missouri; Nebraska; Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; and City of Omaha, NE; Delegation of Authority, 25382-25390 2018-11757 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Redesignation of the Etowah County Unclassifiable Area, 25422-25424 2018-11835 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting, 25452-25453 2018-11802 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods; Designation of One New Reference Method, 25451 2018-11832 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 25451-25452 2018-11773 Product Cancellation Order: Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amendments To Terminate Uses, 25453-25454 2018-11755 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25455-25456 2018-11798 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters, 25363-25365 2018-11446 Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Series Airplanes; Installed Rechargeable Lithium Batteries, 25361-25363 2018-11455 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 25412-25415 2018-11680 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH), 25415-25417 2018-11447 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 25419-25422 2018-11692 Austro Engine GmbH Engines, 25410-25412 2018-11378 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Helicopters, 25408-25410 2018-11445 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 25417-25419 2018-11679 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 25405-25408 2018-11693 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES General Administrative Regulations; Administrative Remedies for Non-Compliance, 25361 2018-11799 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25456 2018-11881 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 25456 2018-11744 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Removing Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (Hidden Lake Bluecurls) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 25392-25404 2018-11786 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Addressing the Issuance of Incidental Take Permits for Four Wind Energy Projects in Hawaii, 25475-25479 2018-11821 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food, 25466-25468 2018-11801 Guidance: Development of a Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, 25468-25469 2018-11783 Waivers of the Single, Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Requirement, 25465-25466 2018-11784 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service RULES Simplified Cost Accounting and Other Actions To Reduce Paperwork in the Summer Food Service Program, 25349-25361 2018-11806 NOTICES Requests for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control Integrity and Modernization, 25425-25426 2018-11849 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Tesla, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 126; Reno, NV, 25428-25429 2018-11819 Subzone Status; Approvals: AGCO Corporation Jackson and Round Lake, MN, 25428 2018-11818 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Bog Creek Road Project, 25472-25475 2018-11766 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Authorized Negotiators, 25456-25457 2018-11778 Incentive Contracts, 25457 2018-11779 Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 25458 2018-11780 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements, 25502-25533 2018-11673 NOTICES Meetings: Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force, 25469-25470 2018-11747
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming: Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact Taking Effect in the State of Connecticut, 25484 2018-11738 Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation Liquor Ordinance; Repeal and Replace, 25479-25483 2018-11839 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Advance Notification of Sunset Review, 25436 2018-11813 Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 25436-25438 2018-11815 Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 25429-25431 2018-11814 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, 25438 2018-11737 Revisions and Clarifications to User Fees for Export and Investment Promotion Services and Events, 25431-25436 2018-11812 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From China, 25488-25490 2018-11677 Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Belarus, China, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, Poland, and Ukraine, 25490-25493 2018-11678 Xanthan Gum From China, 25485-25488 2018-11676 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: CERCLA, 25493 2018-11795 Clean Water Act, 25494-25495 2018-11781 2018-11782 Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Quarterly Narrative Progress Report, Employment and Training Supplemental Budget Request Activities, 25495-25496 2018-11807
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Segregation for the Proposed Yellow Pine Solar Project, Clark County, NV, 25484-25485 2018-10961 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Authorized Negotiators, 25456-25457 2018-11778 Incentive Contracts, 25457 2018-11779 Novation/Change of Name Requirements, 25458 2018-11780 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, 25440-25441 2018-11800 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Coast Boulevard Improvements Project, La Jolla, CA, 25438-25440 2018-11785 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Occupational Exposure to Beryllium in General Industry; Limited Extension of Select Compliance Dates, 25536-25543 2018-11643 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day (Proc. 9756), 25327-25328 2018-11909 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Federal Lands, Recreational Services on; Executive Order 13658 Exemption (EO 13838), 25341-25342 2018-11936 Government Agencies and Employees: Civil Service Employees, Removal Procedures Consistent With Merit System Principles: Efforts To Promote Accountability and Efficiency (EO 13839), 25343-25347 2018-11939 Collective Bargaining, Federal Sector; Effort To Develop Efficient, Effective and Cost-Reducing Approaches (EO 13836), 25329-25334 2018-11913 Union Time, Taxpayer-Funded Use; Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency Efforts (EO 13837), 25335-25340 2018-11916 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Technical Amendments to Rules of Practice and Rules of Organization; Conduct and Ethics; and Information and Requests, 25365-25366 2018-11618 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25496 2018-11917 State Department State Department NOTICES Designations as Global Terrorists: Al-Nusrah Front, 25496-25497 2018-11794 2018-11797 Meetings: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee and Preparations for Upcoming International Telecommunications Meetings, 25496 2018-11811 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities: Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 25470-25471 2018-11809 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States: Anti-Dumping Measures Applying Differential Pricing Methodology to Softwood Lumber From Canada, 25498-25499 2018-11777 Countervailing Measures on Softwood Lumber From Canada, 25497-25498 2018-11776 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: NMK Resources, Inc.; Thorofare, NJ, 25471-25472 2018-11850 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Bog Creek Road Project, 25472-25475 2018-11766 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Special Medical Advisory Group, 25499 2018-11767 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, 25502-25533 2018-11673 Part III Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 25536-25543 2018-11643 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.

83 106 Friday, June 1, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 210 and 225 [FNS-2013-0026] RIN 0584-AD84 Simplified Cost Accounting and Other Actions To Reduce Paperwork in the Summer Food Service Program AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) regulations to incorporate statutory changes mandated by Section 738 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, which extends simplified cost accounting and reporting procedures to SFSP sponsors in all States, and eliminates the cost comparison requirements for determining payments to sponsors. In addition, this rule makes several discretionary changes to improve administrative efficiency and reduce paperwork in the management of the SFSP. Finally, this rule amends the National School Lunch Program regulations to create consistency among the Child Nutrition Programs with regard to notice procedures. The intended effect of this rule is to simplify and streamline Program administration while ensuring Program integrity.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective July 31, 2018.

Implementation Date: State agencies and Summer Food Service Program sponsors must implement the provisions of this rule no later than January 1, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Farmer, (703) 305-2470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is authorized under Section 13 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C. 1761. The primary purpose of the Program is to provide free, nutritious meals to children in low-income areas during periods when schools are not in session. FNS has made strides to ensure that those in need have food to eat and to streamline Program operations. SFSP serves not only the neediest children, but also functions as an opportunity for local leaders and business owners to serve their community. Summer Meal Programs can be operated in a variety of settings and should focus on the needs of diverse communities. Because of this, the types of participating Program sponsors vary widely—from Federal agencies, to local governments, school districts, and small nonprofit community organizations.

This final rule codifies the nondiscretionary simplified cost accounting and reporting procedures established in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161). These simplified cost accounting procedures were originally authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 and were piloted in fourteen states from 2001-2004. Section 18(f) of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265) made the simplified cost accounting procedures permanent for eligible States. Six new States in addition to the original fourteen States were determined eligible. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 extended the simplified procedures to all sponsors in all States.

This final rule also makes discretionary changes to the SFSP regulations to improve management of the Program and reduce paperwork requirements for program operators. The purpose of the simplified procedures is to facilitate and encourage participation by eligible sponsors, in turn providing access to those in need in the summer months and other times during the year when they do not have access to school meals.

The regulatory changes to the reimbursement procedures will align Program regulations with current policy FNS issued in 2008 to implement statutory changes, SFSP 01-2008, Nationwide Expansion of Summer Food Service Program Simplified Cost Accounting Procedures, January 2, 2008. This policy guidance implemented the elimination of the cost comparison to determine reimbursements, the establishment of a reimbursement rate of “meals times rate” without comparison to actual or budgeted costs, and the requirement that sponsors maintain records of their costs for State agency review, rather than report their costs to the State agency.

The intent of this rulemaking is to simplify the SFSP for State agencies, sponsors, and site operators while providing a quality meal service to children and maintaining integrity of the Program. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (78 FR 41857) on July 12, 2013, seeking to codify changes to cost accounting practices as well as make changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Program and reduce administrative paperwork. The majority of provisions in the proposed rule codify the existing policies and guidance already being implemented in the SFSP nationwide:

• Extend simplified cost accounting and reporting procedures to SFSP sponsors in all States and eliminate the cost comparison requirements for determining payments to sponsors.

• Require sponsors to utilize unused reimbursement to improve the Program, or pay allowable costs of other Child Nutrition Programs operated by the sponsor.

• Provide State agencies the flexibility to exempt school food authority sponsors from submitting a separate budget when applying to operate SFSP, provided that operation of SFSP was included in their annual budget for operation of the National School Lunch Program.

• Require sponsors to maintain documentation confirming the operation of a nonprofit food service.

• Establish the responsibilities of State agencies when reviewing a sponsor's operation under simplified procedures, including suggestions for monitoring of the nonprofit food service.

• Encourage State agencies to provide technical assistance to sponsors to utilize unused reimbursements to improve the meal service, improve Program management, or pay allowable costs of other Child Nutrition Programs operated by the sponsor if significant unused reimbursements are found during a sponsor review.

• Allow more alternatives for sponsors to combine claims for reimbursement.

• Allow sponsors to renew contracts for up to four years, to reduce paperwork and increase the sponsors' negotiating power to get higher quality meals at a better price.

• Clarify the administrative oversight role of sponsors at meal service sites.

• Provide consistent notification and simplified acquisition threshold requirements across Child Nutrition Programs.

II. Public Comments and FNS Response

FNS appreciates the insightful comments provided by stakeholders and the public. Twenty-two comments were received from a cross section of SFSP administrators, SFSP operators, and advocates. Commenters included representatives of State Departments of Education, food banks, and nonprofit organizations supporting anti-hunger efforts, summer learning, and afterschool programs. Seven State administering agencies, four SFSP sponsors, and 11 advocacy organizations submitted comments on the proposed rule. It should be noted that 22 comments represent a very small portion of the vast number of SFSP stakeholders. To view all of the public comments on the proposed rule, go to www.regulations.gov and search for public submissions under docket number FNS-2013-0026.

Of the 22 comments received, 19 voiced general support for the implementation of the simplified cost accounting amendments, the clarification of the sponsor's responsibility for oversight at meal sites, and the amendment of the threshold for small purchases, and offered thoughtful suggestions for improvements to strengthen the rule and provide more clarity on certain sections.

Some commenters specifically voiced concern regarding the proposed changes to the collection of excess funds, approval of applications, review of nutrition quality, and monitoring of sponsor budgets and nonprofit food service. These commenters expressed concern that the proposed changes could compel State agencies to reinstate administrative practices that had been required for cost accounting, prior to the 2008 law and publication of subsequent implementing guidance. Additionally, a few commenters expressed concern that several of the provisions regarding State agency monitoring would create undue burden on the administering State agencies and sponsors and might discourage participation. Several commenters also requested clarity and guidance on a number of the provisions, particularly State agency monitoring of sponsors and operation of a nonprofit food service.

The following is a summary of the public comments by provision. In some instances, several provisions are grouped together under the same topic area because the provisions and comments received are related:

a. Simplified Cost Accounting and Reporting 7 CFR 225.9(c), 7 CFR 225.9(d)(7), 7 CFR 225.9(d)(8)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would codify the practice of using a combined operating and administrative reimbursement of “meals times rates” for all sponsors, and eliminate cost comparison requirements at 7 CFR 225.9(d)(7) and (8). The proposed rule would also streamline the process for calculating advances under 7 CFR 225.9(c) by no longer differentiating between operating and administrative advances. As required by legislative action, FNS updated its policy guidance to provide for implementation of a combined reimbursement nationwide.

Regulations at 7 CFR 225.9(c) provide a framework for advancing payments to sponsors, while 7 CFR 225.9(d)(7) and (8) require State agencies to reimburse participating sponsors on a per-meal basis for meals meeting Program requirements. Prior to the implementation of the pilot and the subsequent extension of the simplified cost accounting procedures to all States and sponsors, sponsors received reimbursement separately for both operating costs and administrative costs.

Comments: There was unanimous support from all commenters who commented on these specific provisions. Several of the commenters offered recommendations to create more flexibility within this provision by allowing State agencies to determine the percentage of the advance that is given to sponsors. Other commenters suggested additional training for school food authorities (SFA).

FNS Response: The changes to 7 CFR 225.9(d)(7) and (8) to eliminate cost comparison requirements, as proposed, are finalized in this rule. In response to commenters' request for more flexibility for State agencies to determine the percentage of advance payments, we must clarify that FNS does not have the statutory authority to amend those requirements. The requirements to provide service institutions with advance payments as well as the determined percentages of advance payments are codified at Section 13(e)(1) and (2) of the NSLA and do not provide the discretion FNS would need to amend the requirements for advance payments. However, the regulations at 7 CFR 225.9(c)(3) (this rulemaking amends citation to 7 CFR 225.9(c)(2)) do provide some flexibility to the State agency to “make the best possible estimate based on the sponsor's request and any other available data” when determining the amount of the advanced payment. State agencies should work with sponsors, especially those sponsors that are operating the Program for the first time, as they develop their request for advance payments.

In current regulations, State agencies already have the discretion to require more training for SFAs. Therefore, FNS maintains that the proposed language provides State agencies with the flexibility to require additional training. However, in order to provide clarity, FNS intends to issue additional guidance on administration of advances as deemed necessary.

Accordingly, the changes to 7 CFR 225.9(d)(7) and (8) and (c) as proposed are finalized in this rule. They eliminate the cost comparison requirements, combine operating and administrative reimbursements into a single “meals times rates” reimbursement, and combine operating and administrative advances. In addition, references to operating and administrative costs were removed throughout 7 CFR 225.9.

b. Budget Submissions 7 CFR 225.6(b)(7)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would amend 7 CFR 225.6(b)(7) to allow State agencies to exempt SFA sponsors that participated in the SFSP in the previous year and had no documented serious problems managing the SFSP or National School Lunch Program (NSLP) from the annual budget submission requirement.

Prior to publication of the proposed rule, FNS issued policy guidance (SFSP 01-2008, Nationwide Expansion of Summer Food Service Program Simplified Cost Accounting Procedures, January 2, 2008 and SFSP 03-2008, Simplified Procedures in the Summer Food Service Program, February 14, 2008) that provided State agencies with the flexibility to exempt certain sponsors from the requirement to submit budgets annually with their applications for participation as specified in 7 CFR 225.6(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (c)(3)(ii)(B) and to receive start-up or advance payments as specified in 7 CFR 225.9(a) and (c)(2)(i).

The proposed changes would have brought the regulations in line with exemptions currently available nationwide.

Comments: Of the five unique comments received on this provision, two supported, one opposed, and two provided recommendations for clarifying and streamlining the process to reduce administrative burden on sponsors. One commenter recommended allowing State agencies to exempt SFA sponsors, who participated successfully in any Child Nutrition Program (including NSLP, School Breakfast Program (SBP), and Seamless Summer Option (SSO)) in the prior year, from the annual budget submission requirement. The commenter that opposed this provision expressed that “successful” was too vague a term and requested additional criteria for identifying a successful operation. The opposing commenter also identified the budget submission as a necessity in order to determine the nonprofit food service status of sponsors.

FNS Response: The proposed changes to the budget submission process were intended to align regulations with implemented national flexibility to allow States to exempt certain sponsors from the requirement. This flexibility dates back to the original simplified cost accounting pilot first started in 2001. However, these provisions are not consistent with statutory changes made in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296). Amendments to Section 13(b)(3) of the NSLA revised budget submission requirements to specify that “when applying for participation in the program, and not less frequently than annually thereafter, each service institution shall submit a complete budget for administrative costs related to the program, which shall be subject to approval by the State.” Based on the legislative amendments to Section 13 of the NSLA, all sponsors, without exception, applying to participate must submit a complete budget for administrative costs related to the Program.

FNS has received consistent feedback from stakeholders that budget submissions are a useful tool for maintaining Program integrity. The budget review process provides the opportunity to identify unallowable costs and helps ensure that funds are used only for allowable costs. Maintaining a requirement for State agencies to annually review budgets allows SFA sponsors to receive important feedback on the allowability of planned expenditures.

However, FNS recognizes that submitting a separate budget for SFSP would be duplicative for SFAs that have already submitted budget information as part of their operation of another Child Nutrition Program. In an effort to reduce administrative and paperwork burden, State agencies may exempt SFAs applying to operate the SFSP from submitting a separate budget to the State agency, provided that operation of the SFSP is included in the annual budget submitted for the NSLP.

Accordingly, the proposed changes to budget submission requirements are not included in the final rule and the requirement at 7 CFR 225.6(b)(7) that sponsors must submit budgets when they apply for participation in the SFSP is maintained. In addition, the final rule adds at 7 CFR 225.6(b)(7) State agency discretion to exempt SFAs from submitting a separate budget provided that operation of the SFSP is included in the annual budget submitted for the NSLP.

c. Maintaining a Nonprofit Food Service 7 CFR 225.12(a), 7 CFR 225.15(a), 7 CFR 225.15(c)

The proposed rule touched on several sections of the regulations relating to maintenance of a nonprofit food service, including sections on claims against sponsors and management responsibilities of sponsors.

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would amend 7 CFR 225.15(a)(4) to require sponsors to maintain documentation confirming the operation of a nonprofit food service. The proposed rule would also clarify 7 CFR 225.12(a) and 225.15(c)(1), which restrict the use of SFSP reimbursements on allowable costs only and require that sponsors' records include all costs associated with the meal service and document that all costs are allowable.

Regulations found at 7 CFR 225.6(e)(1) require sponsors to maintain a nonprofit food service. Regulations at 7 CFR 225.12(a) and 225.15(a) and (c) outline the requirements for maintaining a nonprofit food service in the SFSP. Sponsors that operate multiple Child Nutrition Programs on a year-round basis are not required to maintain a separate nonprofit food service account for the SFSP. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which expanded the simplified cost accounting procedures, also amended statutory requirements for maintaining a nonprofit food service. FNS provided guidance on what is required to document the maintenance of a nonprofit food service under the legislative changes via policy memorandum (SFSP 01-2008, Nationwide Expansion of Summer Food Service Program Simplified Cost Accounting Procedures, January 2, 2008).

Comments: FNS received eight unique comments on the topic of maintaining a nonprofit food service. Three of the eight comments opposed the provision, two proposed recommendations for clarity, and one expressed concern that this provision could eventually result in USDA requiring end-of-year operating statements. Commenters expressed concern that FNS was establishing a requirement that sponsors report costs to the State agency on a routine or annual basis. Similarly, commenters recommended clarifying the language to ensure that sponsors do not have to report their costs to the State agency on an annual basis. Commenters also recommended codifying the language used in the January 2008 guidance, which said that sponsors “must be able to document” their nonprofit food service.

FNS Response: The intent of this provision is consistent with the January 2008 guidance, which requires that sponsors be able to document that they have maintained a nonprofit food service. It is not the intent of this provision to require sponsors to submit cost records to the State agency on a routine or annual basis. As noted in that guidance, sponsors may meet this requirement by retaining records of all revenues received and expenses paid from the nonprofit food service account. This requirement does not include submitting records to the State agency on a routine or annual basis. However, FNS expects that sponsors will maintain documentation to support their operation of a nonprofit food service to ensure the integrity of the Program. This documentation permits the sponsor, reviewers, and auditors to evaluate and verify during a review that the SFSP was operated on a nonprofit basis. State agencies are responsible for informing sponsors that expenses paid from the nonprofit food service account must be allowable costs that are necessary, reasonable, and properly documented. Accordingly, FNS will amend 7 CFR 225.12(a) and 225.15(a)(4) and (c)(1) to retain the language to maintain documentation of a nonprofit service account in the final rule as it was proposed.

d. Collection of Excess Funds 7 CFR 225.9

Proposed Rule: As proposed, this provision would add a paragraph to 7 CFR 225.9 to require sponsors to use “excess funds” (reimbursements exceeding allowable costs) to improve the meal service or management of the program. The provision also would allow sponsors to use remaining funds at the end of the Program year to be used to pay allowable costs of other Child Nutrition Programs.

The provision went further to require excess funds to be collected from sponsors that do not operate at least one other Child Nutrition Program and do not plan to participate in the SFSP in the following year. At the time the proposed rule was published, the only requirements for collection of excess funds in SFSP regulations were found at 7 CFR 225.9(c)(7) and referred to collection of funds in excess of advanced payments.

Comments: Of the six unique comments received, two opposed the provision, two offered recommendations, one expressed concern, and one supported the changes. Those who opposed the provision stated that it would increase administrative burden on the States and sponsors. In addition, commenters believed that collecting excess funds would make it difficult for sponsors to improve Program operations and would discourage participation. Ten commenters noted that the proposed changes were not supported by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161), which extended the simplified cost accounting procedures to all sponsors and therefore entitles all sponsors to the maximum reimbursement, as long as the sponsor is meeting the program requirements, including serving meals that meet the Federal nutrition standards.

FNS Response: FNS appreciates the comments received on the effectiveness of collecting excess funds and challenges associated with the implementation of this provision. Upon further review, FNS has determined that the proposed rule and guidance issued following the publication of the proposed rule did not accurately represent the intent of the provision. The regulatory language in the proposed rule, which would have required the State agency to collect “excess funds” (meaning both reimbursements in excess of costs and advance payments in excess of reimbursement) at the end of each summer of Program operations, was overly broad and could create undue burden on both the State agency and sponsors. Additionally, by preventing sponsors from retaining funds at the end of Program operations, sponsors would be unable to take necessary steps between operating times to improve meal service during operation. FNS also recognizes the need for clarity when discussing excess funds and seeks to alleviate the confusion caused by the proposed rule and subsequent guidance.

Under the simplified cost accounting procedures, FNS issued guidance on how to manage excess funds in the SFSP. However, FNS did not clearly define the term “excess funds.” There is an important distinction between excess funds and unused reimbursement that needs to be explained.

FNS defines excess funds, for Program purposes, as the difference between any advance funding and reimbursement funding, when advance funds received by a sponsor are greater than the reimbursement amount earned by a sponsor. This distinction is statutorily established in Section 13(e)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(e)(1), which states that “Not later than June 1, July 15, and August 15 of each year, or, in the case of service institutions that operate under a continuous school calendar, the first day of each month of operation, the State shall forward advance program payments to each service institution. . .” Further, in Section 13(e)(2), the NSLA provides that, “[p]rogram payments advanced to service institutions that are not subsequently deducted from a valid claim for reimbursement shall be repaid upon demand by the State. Any prior payment that is under dispute may be subtracted from an advance program payment.” This requirement is also codified in current regulations at 7 CFR 225.9(c)(7).

While there is, similarly, a statutory directive in Section 13(e)(2) of the NSLA requiring the collection of excess funds, as described above, there is no such statutory directive, or intent, to collect unused reimbursements.

So, an example of excess funds would be if a sponsor requested $1,000 in advance funding and only claimed $900 in meal reimbursement; the sponsor would have $100 in excess funds that cannot be used in other Child Nutrition Programs. The State agency has the statutory and regulatory authority to recover the $100 in excess funds at the end of Program operations for which the advance was paid.

In contrast, FNS defines unused reimbursements differently than excess funds. Unused reimbursements are the difference between the amount claimed for reimbursement and actual costs, should reimbursement exceed costs. For example, if a sponsor received $1,000 in meal claim reimbursement but only spent $900 on actual costs to operate the Program, the sponsor would have $100 in unused reimbursement.

FNS expects States and sponsors to adequately manage resources, so that a well-run, quality summer meal service does not result in a significant amount of unused reimbursement. It is incumbent on sponsors and State agencies to monitor program operations throughout the summer and for sponsors to make adjustments to ensure that quality meals are being served. However, should a sponsor have unspent reimbursement, this remaining amount must be kept in a nonprofit food service account, as required of all Child Nutrition Programs. These funds must benefit the operation of another Child Nutrition Program operated by the sponsor or SFSP operations operated by the sponsor the following Program year. If a sponsor does not return to participate in SFSP and does not operate any other Child Nutrition Programs, the sponsor is not required to return the unused reimbursement. As noted by commenters, this is in keeping with the intent of the statute which entitles all sponsors to the maximum reimbursement, as long as the sponsor is meeting the program requirements.

Additionally, in order to address the issue of treating sponsors remaining in the Program differently than sponsors not intending to participate in the following year, FNS would like to highlight the regulatory requirements at 7 CFR 225.6(e)(1)(i) that sponsors must enter into a permanent agreement with the State agency, in which they must agree to operate a nonprofit food service during the period specified. Therefore, those sponsors remaining in the Program must continue to operate a nonprofit food service in order to be in compliance with regulations and not be in violation of the Sponsor-State agreement. This means that should a sponsor have unused reimbursement, it must be used to improve the Program or for allowable costs in other Child Nutrition Programs operated by the sponsor. In contrast, a sponsor that chooses not participate in the Program no longer has an agreement with the State agency and is not required to operate a nonprofit food service.

Since 2008, consistent with statutory direction in Section 13 of the NSLA, FNS has made the distinction between excess funds and unused reimbursement in order to protect the integrity of program operations by ensuring that sponsors are only permitted to retain funds that are payment for meals served to children through the SFSP. It is important to remember that under simplified cost accounting procedures, unused reimbursements are not returned to the State agency unless unallowable meals were claimed for reimbursement. State agencies are always permitted to conduct closeout audits or reviews to determine if all meals claimed were valid and that Program funds were spent on allowable costs only.

FNS encourages this oversight activity, particularly when the State agency has concerns about how the sponsor operated the Program.

If unallowable costs are identified during a closeout review or audit, the State agency should follow appropriate audit resolution procedures, although no funds would be recovered. If a sponsor will not operate SFSP in the future, but currently operates another Child Nutrition Program, the sponsor would be required to restore the misspent SFSP funds to its nonprofit food service account. In cases where the organization does not intend to participate in the SFSP in the future and does not currently participate in any other Child Nutrition Programs, the State agency should notify the sponsor of the findings and retain documentation of the findings on file. If the organization applies for participation in any Child Nutrition Program in the future, the State agency should ensure the organization has proper controls in place to prevent a recurrence of the improper expenditures of nonprofit food service account funds. This is consistent with longstanding Department policy, issued during the implementation of the simplified cost accounting procedures (SFSP 01-2008, Nationwide Expansion of Summer Food Service Program Simplified Cost Accounting Procedures, January 2, 2008).

Therefore, the final rule retains the current requirement that excess funds, defined as the difference between any advance funding and reimbursement funding, when advance funds received by a sponsor are greater than the reimbursement amount earned by a sponsor, must be returned to the State agency at the end of program operations, even if the sponsor plans to return to the Program the following year. The final rule additionally clarifies that unused reimbursement may be retained by the sponsor. If the sponsor plans to return to the Program the following year, the unused reimbursement must be maintained in the sponsor's nonprofit food service account and must be put toward the operation of another Child Nutrition Program or for SFSP operations the following summer. FNS has issued guidance instructing sponsors to utilize unused reimbursement for the improvement of the meal service or management of the Program or to use the funds for allowable costs in other Child Nutrition Programs.

Accordingly, this final rule adds definitions of “Excess funds” and “Unused reimbursement” under 7 CFR 225.2 and clarifies what sponsors should do with unused reimbursement under a new paragraph at 7 CFR 225.9(g). The final rule will retain the requirement for sponsors to utilize unused reimbursement to improve the Program, or for allowable costs in other Child Nutrition Programs and will not codify the proposed requirement to collect unused reimbursement from sponsors.

e. State Agency Monitoring 7 CFR 225.7

In order to maintain the integrity of Program operations, it is critical that State agencies and sponsors practice sound Program management. The proposed rule would change several provisions to provide additional requirements that would ensure thorough reviews of program operations. These changes expanded upon requirements for State agencies to establish financial management systems and standards for sponsor recordkeeping found at 7 CFR 225.7(d). In general, one commenter opposed the changes and one offered a recommendation. The commenter who opposed the provision believed that the procedures were too prescriptive and would increase the administrative burden for both sponsors and States. Another commenter offered the recommendation to provide additional funding and training to help States develop additional systems needed to support this requirement. Several commenters offered more detailed comments on the specific provisions, as discussed below.

7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(A)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would require State agencies to determine if a sponsor provides a nutritious, high quality food service.

Comments: Two commenters supported the provision, while several others offered recommendations to provide additional guidance on what defines a nutritious, high quality food service.

FNS Response: FNS agrees with commenters that including a review of “nutritious, high quality food” is vague and should not be codified in the regulations. FNS has issued additional guidance on operating a high quality meal service to ensure that sponsors are providing the best possible meals to children and that State agencies have the resources to support sponsors in serving high quality meals following the publication of this rule. FNS encourages State agencies and sponsors to review the overall quality of the meal service. Accordingly, this provision is absent from the final rule.

7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(B)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have required State agencies to determine if expenditures are allowable and consistent with FNS Instructions and guidance.

Comments: Two commenters offered support and requested additional guidance to define what is allowable.

FNS Response: FNS agrees with commenters that additional guidance is necessary for this provision. FNS has issued Instruction 796-4 that clearly outlines what costs are considered allowable in the SFSP. Accordingly, FNS has codified at 7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(A) that the State agency should determine if expenditures are allowable and consistent with FNS Instructions and guidance and all funds accruing to the food service are properly identified and recorded as food service revenue.

7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(C)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would require State agencies to determine if expenditures are consistent with expenditures of comparable sponsors.

Comments: Three State agencies opposed the part of the provision that requires a comparison to similar sponsors, saying that it is not a reasonable request for State agencies as they do not have the resources to conduct such a comparison and it would be technically difficult for States to accomplish.

FNS Response: FNS recognizes that comparing the expenditures of similar sponsors would be unnecessarily burdensome on the State agencies. State agencies should be aware of what reasonable costs of similarly sized sponsoring organizations would be; however, a formal comparison is not required. Accordingly, FNS has clarified in the codified language at 7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(B) that State agencies should determine if expenditures are consistent with budgeted costs and previous year's expenditures.

7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(D)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would require State agencies to determine if sponsor reimbursements have resulted in accumulation of net cash resources as defined in 7 CFR 225.7(f).

Comments: One commenter expressed support but also concern for how State agencies would be able to distinguish the difference when evaluating combined accounts.

FNS Response: State agencies must establish a system for monitoring and reviewing a sponsor's nonprofit food service accounts to ensure that the sponsor has not accumulated net cash resources over the limits as defined in 7 CFR 225.7(f). FNS expects that this knowledge will be developed through the review process. As mentioned in the discussion on excess funds and unused reimbursement, accumulations of net cash resources should be closely monitored by sponsors and State agencies to ensure resources are being appropriately managed. Accordingly, FNS has codified at 7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(C) that State agencies should determine that reimbursements have not resulted in accumulation of net cash resources.

7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(E)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would require State agencies to determine if the level of administrative spending is reasonable.

Comments: One commenter recommended providing specific guidance for determining when spending is reasonable. Another commenter opposed the provision, saying that it goes against the elimination of the distinction between operating and administrative reimbursements and would place an administrative burden on State agencies.

FNS Response: State agencies should be able to determine what is reasonable spending and ensure that sponsors are using reimbursements for administrative costs in a manner that is consistent with the operation of a nonprofit food service. Accordingly, FNS retains the proposed provision and codifies it at 7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(D).

7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(F)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would require State agencies to determine if there are any other issues identified by reviewers and whether these issues are being managed appropriately.

Comments: No commenters responded to this provision.

FNS Response: As FNS amended the final rule to put forth a list of recommended conditions for State agencies to review, including other identified issues became redundant. Accordingly, this provision is absent from the final rule.

In summary, accordingly, the final rule removes the requirements at 7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii) that the State agency review the specific aspects of sponsor operations listed in the regulatory text and instead provides a list of Program management issues for potential review by the State agency at 7 CFR 225.7(d)(2)(iii)(A) through (D).

7 CFR 225.7(f)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have added additional requirements at 7 CFR 225.7(f) that the State must establish a system to monitor and review the sponsor's nonprofit food service to ensure that Program reimbursement funds are being used solely to conduct the food service operation. Under the proposed rule, the State must also ensure that sponsors do not have net cash resources totaling more than three months' average expenditures in their nonprofit food service accounts.

The addition of § 225.7(f), as proposed, would have codified that certain corrective actions may be necessary to improve food service quality under the following conditions:

• The sponsor's net cash resources exceed three months' average expenditures for the sponsor's nonprofit food service or such other amount as may be approved in accordance with the paragraph;

• The ratio of administrative to operational costs (as defined in 7 CFR 225.2) is high as compared to similar sponsors;

• There is significant use of alternative funding for food and/or other costs; or

• A significant portion of the food served is privately donated or purchased at a very low price.

Comments: On the criteria required for State agencies to review sponsor nonprofit food service, several commenters opposed portions of this section, specifically the requirement to use the three month cap on cash resources, the comparison between sponsors, the ratio of administrative to operating costs, the significant use of alternative funds to determine the quality of the nonprofit food service and the requirement for States to take corrective action should sponsors fall under any of these indicators. Commenters preferred these indicators to be considered but not required.

FNS Response: FNS appreciates the responses from various stakeholders expressing concern about the proposed changes to require corrective action to improve food service quality under prescribed conditions. While the intent of this rule is to streamline Program operations and decrease the administrative burden for both States and sponsors, FNS must also ensure the integrity of the Program. FNS agrees with commenters that due to the short duration of summer meal programs, a net cash resource limit of three months' average expenditures may be considered too high. FNS recognizes that the prescriptive language proposed could add increased burden or unfairly target certain organizations that run quality programs but still meet the conditions specified in the proposed rule. For example, a food pantry might have a higher ratio of administrative costs to operating costs and have significant use of alternative funds. Under the proposed rule, the food pantry might have been subject to a higher level of scrutiny based on the criteria set forth, despite operating a high quality meal service.

Accordingly, due to the short duration of the Program, the final rule includes a limit of one month's net cash resources for sponsors that operate during the summer months but retains the three month limit for sponsors that operate Child Nutrition Programs year round at 7 CFR 225.7(f). Additionally, the final rule retains the conditions State agencies should review, as proposed, but rather than requiring a review of these conditions, encourages States to use these conditions as indicators of potential Program mismanagement.

7 CFR 225.11(f)(1)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule sought to add to requirements at 7 CFR 225.11(f)(1) to direct the State agency to require the sponsor to implement appropriate corrective action if it is determined during a review that the sponsor was not providing a high quality meal service. The proposed rule outlined in the proposed changes to 7 CFR 225.7(f) how the State agency would make the determination if corrective action was necessary.

Comments: In response to the additional requirement for State agencies to require corrective action to improve the meal service if a sponsor is found to be operating a program with poor quality food service, six commenters either opposed or recommended additional guidance. Of the six commenters, four State agencies expressed concern that the guidance was too vague and they would not be able to effectively determine what constitutes a poor quality meal service.

FNS Response: FNS agrees with commenters that requiring corrective action for poor quality meal service is too vague and requires more guidance. Accordingly, the final rule removes the requirement for corrective action if a sponsor is determined to be operating a poor quality meal service and is operating below the reimbursement level, and instead adds a new paragraph at 7 CFR 225.11(g) that recommends that States provide technical assistance to sponsors in these circumstances. However, if State agencies observe violations during a review, they should act immediately, due to the short duration of summer program operations.

f. Small Purchase Procedures 7 CFR 225.15(m)

Proposed Rule: The proposed change would remove reference to the outdated small purchase threshold (referred to as simplified acquisition threshold in 2 CFR part 200 and throughout the remainder of this final rule) of $10,000 and allow State and local agencies to use the simplified acquisition threshold for small purchases up to the threshold set by 2 CFR part 200.

Comments: FNS received five unique comments. Of these, three supported the provision, one commenter partially supported and partially opposed the provision, and one commenter offered a recommendation for improving the bid bond requirements. Commenters generally supported aligning the requirements for small purchase procedures with those already at 2 CFR part 200. One State agency opposed the requirement that all bids be submitted to the State agency for approval before acceptance, and that these bids are responded to within five working days of receipt, claiming that this would create a burden on the State agency.

Commenters also expressed concern that the bid bond requirements should be left to the discretion of the sponsor, as the new requirements might pass additional costs from Food Service Management Companies (FSMC) to the sponsor.

FNS Response: FNS appreciates the support for aligning the requirements for small purchase procedures with those already in Federal Regulations. The purpose of this provision is to align SFSP regulations with broader Federal requirements. Aligning the requirement with 2 CFR part 200 allows for periodic adjustments in the dollar value when the periodic adjustment occurs and relieves FNS of the requirement to change the dollar amount in the Program regulations. Some commenters provided responses to portions of the provisions that did not contain proposed changes, specifically the comments related to the State agency responsibilities regarding bids and sponsor discretion in determining the amount of the bid bond. While FNS appreciates these comments, this final rule will only address the alignment of the simplified acquisition threshold. Accordingly, the final rule aligns regulations at 7 CFR 225.15(m)(4) through (6) with the simplified acquisition threshold with current Federal regulations at 2 CFR part 200.

g. FSMCs and Procurement Standards 7 CFR 225.6(h)(2), 7 CFR 225.6(h)(7)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule sought to remove the existing limit of $10,000 in aggregate for food service management companies, and instead link the standard contract threshold to 2 CFR part 200. This change would help ensure that the standard contract threshold in SFSP is adjusted regularly in accordance with the thresholds applied to the other Child Nutrition Programs. The proposed rule would apply this threshold to individual contracts, rather than aggregate contracts.

The proposed rule also offered changes to 7 CFR 225.6(h)(7) to make SFSP requirements consistent with NSLP requirements that pertain to food service management companies. The changes would allow sponsors to enter into annual contracts that may be renewed annually for up to four additional years. The rule also proposed that all contracts in excess of $10,000 contain clauses for termination for both cause and convenience with 60-day notification.

Comments: FNS received eight unique comments regarding FSMCs and Procurement Standards, with four commenters supporting the provision, two commenters opposing the term for contract termination and two commenters offering recommendations for improving the rule consistent with preferred practice. Due to the short length of the Program, some commenters felt that a 60-day notification of termination was too long. Commenters recommended that a 30-day notification period would be better suited for the Program.

FNS Response: FNS recognizes that the Program has certain time constraints and that making the procurement standards consistent with NSLP might be impractical for sponsors. Accordingly, FNS amends 7 CFR 225.6(h)(2) to align the small purchase threshold to 2 CFR part 200. This final rule also adds a new paragraph at 7 CFR 225.6(h)(7) to set a maximum 60-day notification of termination for cause or convenience. The final rule retains language to allow sponsors to enter into annual contracts with FSMCs that may be renewed annually for up to four additional years.

7 CFR 225.17

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would include the requirement for allowing all contracts to be terminated for cause or for convenience.

Comments: Two commenters expressed support for this change. One commenter specifically noted that they supported the change because it did not include the 60-day notification of termination clause contained in the proposed changes to 7 CFR 225.6(h)(7).

FNS Response: FNS agrees with commenters that this section should not include a 60-day notification of termination clause. Accordingly, the language in the final rule is codified as proposed under a new paragraph at 7 CFR 225.17(f).

h. Administrative Oversight at Approved Meal Service Sites 7 CFR 225.14(d)(3)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule sought to clarify sponsors' responsibilities with respect to meal services at the approved meal service sites and emphasizes that sponsors must have “administrative oversight,” rather than “direct operational control,” of meal services. Current regulations require sponsors to have “direct operational control” of meal service sites, meaning they are responsible for managing site staff, including hiring and determining conditions of employment and termination.

Based on FNS's experience in administering SFSP and in consultation with local, State, and Federal administrators, USDA determined that sponsors find it difficult to comply with the understanding of “direct operational control.” Many sponsors deliver meals to recreational sites that are not directly affiliated with or managed by the sponsors, thus they do not have the authority to hire or terminate staff. Instead, these sponsors have control over only the meal service provided at the site and related activities such as training of staff on meal counting and record keeping procedures.

Comments: FNS received 13 comments touching on this matter, five of which were unique. All commenters expressed support for the change to the provision.

FNS Response: FNS will retain the proposed language for the final rule. Accordingly, the final rule defines sponsor oversight as “administrative oversight” and will not include direct operational control, at 7 CFR 225.14(d)(3).

i. Options To Submit a Combined Claim 7 CFR 225.9(d)(3)

Proposed Rule: The proposed rule sought to make optional the requirement for sponsors operating for less than 10 days in the final month of operations to submit a combined claim for the final and immediate preceding month. Additionally, sponsors wishing to submit combined claims would be allowed to consolidate claims for reimbursement and submit a single claim for reimbursement in the following ways:

• Claims for 10 operating days or less in the initial month of operations may be combined with the claim for the subsequent month;

• Claims for 10 operating days or less in the final month of operations may be combined with the claim for the preceding month; and

• Claims for 3 consecutive months may be combined, as long as this combined claim only includes 10 operating days or less from each of the first and last months of Program operations.

Comments: FNS received four unique comments regarding the option for sponsors to submit a combined reimbursement claim. Two commenters supported the provision while two commenters opposed the provision. Commenters recommended that States be given the discretion to decide how claims were made in order to retain consistent methods.

FNS Response: The intent of this provision is to streamline the claims process for States and sponsors. The proposed language permits sponsors to submit a combined claim. Therefore, the language that was presented in the proposed rule is retained in the final rule with the addition of language specifying State agency discretion. Accordingly, the final rule amends 7 CFR 225.9(d)(3) to provide States with the flexibility to allow sponsors to submit combined claims for reimbursement.

j. Delivery Notice Requirements 7 CFR 210.18, 7 CFR 225.13

Proposed Rule: FNS proposed changes that would specify in NSLP and SFSP regulations what constitutes proper delivery and receipt of a notice of action in an effort to be consistent with the regulations in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). A notice of action is considered delivered by certified mail, return receipt, by facsimile, or by email. Neither NSLP nor SFSP have requirements that explain notice and delivery by a State agency or FNS to an institution. FNS proposed this change because some State agencies have been experiencing difficulty in notifying institutions of review findings, required corrective actions, and terminations. By choosing to avoid accepting the State agency's certified mail, non-complying institutions have continued to operate, claim reimbursement, and mismanage the Programs.

Comments: FNS received three unique comments, all of which supported the provision to make the requirements consistent with CACFP.

FNS Response: Accordingly, the final rule amends 7 CFR 210.18(i) and 225.13(b)(1) to include delivery notice requirements in NSLP and SFSP, respectively.

III. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, 13563 and 13771

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been determined to be not significant by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this rule has not been reviewed by OMB. No Regulatory Impact Analysis is required. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. FNS considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to that review, it has been certified that this final rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will streamline cost accounting procedures so that more time and resources may be directed toward increasing access, providing quality meal service to benefit eligible children, and ensuring Program integrity. While this rule will impact school food authorities, non-profit organizations, and local governments that choose to participate, its implementation will not have significant economic impact on any of those entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector.

Under section 202 of the UMRA, USDA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires USDA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This final rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

The Summer Food Service Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under 10.559. The National School Lunch Program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under 10.555. Both of these Child Nutrition Programs are subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Since Child Nutrition Programs are State-administered, FNS has formal and informal discussions with State and local officials, including representatives of Indian Tribal Organizations, on an ongoing basis regarding program requirements and operation. This provides FNS with the opportunity to receive regular input from program administrators which contributes to the development of feasible program requirements.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments. Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121. USDA has considered the impact of this final rule on State and local governments and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not required.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. Appeal procedures are set forth at 7 CFR 225.13.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis

FNS has reviewed this final rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. After a careful review of the rule's intent and provisions, FNS has determined that this rule is not expected to limit or reduce the ability of protected individuals to participate in the Summer Food Service Program or the National School Lunch Program.

Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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. FNS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this final rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FNS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress. FNS is unaware of any current Tribal laws that could be in conflict with this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320) requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency before they can be implemented. Commenters are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain information collection requirements subject to approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

E-Government Act Compliance

USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 210

Grant programs—education, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus agricultural commodities.

7 CFR Part 225

Food assistance programs, Grant programs—health, Infants and children, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 225 are amended as follows:

PART 210—NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 210 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.

2. In § 210.18, remove the last two sentences of paragraph (i)(3) and add, in their place, four sentences to read as follows:
§ 210.18 Administrative reviews.

(i) * * *

(3) * * * This notice shall also include a statement indicating that the school food authority may appeal the denial of all or a part of a Claim for Reimbursement or withholding payment and the entity (i.e., FNS or State agency) to which the appeal should be directed. The notice is considered to be received by the school food authority when it is delivered by certified mail, return receipt (or the equivalent private delivery service), by facsimile, or by email. If the notice is undeliverable, it is considered to be received by the school food authority five days after being sent to the addressee's last known mailing address, facsimile number, or email address. The State agency shall notify the school food authority, in writing, of the appeal procedures as specified in paragraph (p) of this section for appeals of State agency findings, and for appeals of FNS findings, provide a copy of § 210.29(d)(3).

PART 225—SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 9, 13 and 14, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a).

4. In § 225.2, add definitions of “Excess funds” and “Unused reimbursement” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 225.2 Definitions.

Excess funds means the difference between any advance funding and reimbursement funding, when advance funds received by a sponsor are greater than the reimbursement amount earned by a sponsor.

Unused reimbursement means the difference between the amount of reimbursement earned and received and allowable costs, when reimbursement exceeds costs.

5. In § 225.6: a. Amend paragraph (b)(7) by adding a sentence at the end of the paragraph; b. Amend paragraph (h)(1) by removing the term “225.15(h)” and adding in its place the term “225.15(m)” and removing the words “of this part”; c. Amend paragraph (h)(2) introductory text by revising the second sentence; d. Redesignate paragraph (h)(7) as paragraph (h)(8); e. Add new paragraph (h)(7); and f. Amend newly designated paragraph (h)(8) by removing the term “§ 225.15(h)(1)” and adding in its place the term “§ 225.15(m)”.

The revision and additions read as follows:

§ 225.6 State agency responsibilities.

(b) * * *

(7) * * * State agencies may exempt school food authorities applying to operate the SFSP from submitting a separate budget to the State agency, provided that operation of the SFSP is included in the annual budget submitted for the National School Lunch Program.

(h) * * *

(2) * * * Sponsors that are public entities, sponsors with exclusive year-round contracts with a food service management company, and sponsors that have no food service management company contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold in 2 CFR part 200, as applicable, may use their existing or usual form of contract, provided that such form of contract has been submitted to and approved by the State agency. * * *

(7) The contract between a sponsor and food service management company shall be no longer than 1 year; and options for the yearly renewal of a contract may not exceed 4 additional years. All contracts shall include a termination clause whereby either party may cancel for cause or for convenience with up to 60-day notification.

6. In § 225.7: a. Add paragraph (d)(2)(iii); b. Add four sentences to the end of paragraph (f); and c. Add paragraphs (f)(1) through (4).

The additions read as follows:

§ 225.7 Program monitoring and assistance.

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Review of sponsor's operation. State agencies should determine if:

(A) Expenditures are allowable and consistent with FNS Instructions and guidance and all funds accruing to the food service are properly identified and recorded as food service revenue;

(B) Expenditures are consistent with budgeted costs, and the previous year's expenditures taking into consideration any changes in circumstances;

(C) Reimbursements have not resulted in accumulation of net cash resources as defined in paragraph (f) of this section; and

(D) The level of administrative spending is reasonable and does not affect the sponsor's ability to operate a nonprofit food service and provide a quality meal service.

(f) * * * Additionally, each State agency shall establish a system for monitoring and reviewing sponsors' nonprofit food service to ensure that all Program reimbursement funds are used solely for the conduct of the food service operation. State agencies must review the net cash resources of the nonprofit food service of each sponsor participating in the Program and ensure that the net cash resources do not exceed one months' average expenditures for sponsors operating only during the summer months and three months' average expenditure for sponsors operating Child Nutrition Programs throughout the year. State agency approval shall be required for net cash resources in excess of requirements set forth in this paragraph (f). Based on this monitoring, the State agency may provide technical assistance to the sponsor to improve meal service quality or take other action designed to improve the nonprofit meal service quality under the following conditions, including but not limited to:

(1) The sponsor's net cash resources exceed the limits included in this paragraph (f) for the sponsor's nonprofit food service or such other amount as may be approved in accordance with this paragraph;

(2) The ratio of administrative to operating costs (as defined in § 225.2) is high;

(3) There is significant use of alternative funding for food and/or other costs; or

(4) A significant portion of the food served is privately donated or purchased at a very low price.

7. In § 225.9: a. Revise the last sentence of paragraph (a) and paragraphs (c) and (d); and b. Add paragraph (g).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 225.9 Program assistance to sponsors.

(a) * * * The amount of the start-up payment shall be deducted from the first advance payment or, if the sponsor does not receive advance payments, from the first reimbursement.

(c) Advance payments. At the sponsor's request, State agencies shall make advance payments to sponsors that have executed Program agreements in order to assist these sponsors in meeting expenses. For sponsors operating under a continuous school calendar, all advance payments shall be forwarded on the first day of each month of operation. Advance payments shall be made by the dates specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section for all other sponsors whose requests are received at least 30 days prior to those dates. Requests received less than 30 days prior to those dates shall be acted upon within 30 days of receipt. When making advance payments, State agencies shall observe the following criteria:

(1) Payments. (i) State agencies shall make advance payments by June 1, July 15, and August 15. To be eligible for the second and third advance payments, the sponsor must certify that it is operating the number of sites for which the budget was approved and that its projected costs do not differ significantly from the approved budget. Except for school food authorities, sponsors must conduct training sessions before receiving the second advance payment. Training sessions must cover Program duties and responsibilities for the sponsor's staff and for site personnel. A sponsor shall not receive advance payments for any month in which it will participate in the Program for less than 10 days. However, if a sponsor operates for less than 10 days in June but for at least 10 days in August, the second advance payment shall be made by August 15.

(ii) To determine the amount of the advance payment to any sponsor, the State agency shall employ whichever of the following methods will result in the larger payment:

(A) The total reimbursement paid to the sponsor for the same calendar month in the preceding year; or

(B) For vended sponsors, 50 percent of the amount determined by the State agency to be needed that month for meals, or, for self-preparation sponsors, 65 percent of the amount determined by the State agency to be needed that month for meals.

(2) Advance payment estimates. When determining the amount of advance payments payable to the sponsor, the State agency shall make the best possible estimate based on the sponsor's request and any other available data. Under no circumstances may the amount of the advance payment exceed the greater of the amount estimated by the State agency to be needed by the sponsor to meet Program costs or $40,000.

(3) Deductions from advance payments. The State agency shall deduct from advance payments the amount of any previous payment which is under dispute or which is part of a demand for recovery under § 225.12.

(4) Withholding of advance payments. If the State agency has reason to believe that a sponsor will not be able to submit a valid claim for reimbursement covering the month for which advance payments have already been made, the subsequent month's advance payment shall be withheld until a valid claim is received.

(5) Repayment of excess advance payments. Upon demand of the State agency, sponsors shall repay any advance Program payments in excess of the amount cited on a valid claim for reimbursement.

(d) Reimbursements. Sponsors shall not be eligible for meal reimbursements unless they have executed an agreement with the State agency. All reimbursements shall be in accordance with the terms of this agreement. Reimbursements shall not be paid for meals served at a site before the sponsor has received written notification that the site has been approved for participation in the Program. Income accruing to a sponsor's program shall be deducted from costs. The State agency may make full or partial reimbursement upon receipt of a claim for reimbursement, but shall first make any necessary adjustments in the amount to be paid. The following requirements shall be observed in submitting and paying claims:

(1) School food authorities that operate the Program, and operate more than one child nutrition program under a single State agency, must use a common claim form (as provided by the State agency) for claiming reimbursement for meals served under those programs.

(2) No reimbursement may be issued until the sponsor certifies that it operated all sites for which it is approved and that there has been no significant change in its projected expenses since its preceding claim and, for a sponsor receiving an advance payment for only one month, that there has been no significant change in its projected expenses since its initial advance payment.

(3) Sponsors must submit a monthly claim or a combined claim within 60 days of the last day of operation. Sponsors may not submit a combined claim for meal reimbursements that crosses fiscal years. In addition, State agencies must ensure that the correct reimbursement rates are applied for meals claimed for months when different reimbursement rates are in effect. With approval from the State agency, sponsors have the flexibility to combine the claim for reimbursement in the following ways:

(i) For 10 operating days or less in their initial month of operations with the claim for the subsequent month;

(ii) For 10 operating days or less in their final month of operations with the claim for the preceding month; or

(iii) For 3 consecutive months, as long as this combined claim only includes 10 operating days or less from each of the first and last months of program operations.

(4) The State agency shall forward reimbursements within 45 days of receiving valid claims. If a claim is incomplete or invalid, the State agency shall return the claim to the sponsor within 30 days with an explanation of the reason for disapproval. If the sponsor submits a revised claim, final action shall be completed within 45 days of receipt.

(5) Claims for reimbursement shall report information in accordance with the financial management system established by the State agency, and in sufficient detail to justify the reimbursement claimed and to enable the State agency to provide the Reports of Summer Food Service Program Operations required under § 225.8(b). In submitting a claim for reimbursement, each sponsor shall certify that the claim is correct and that records are available to support this claim. Failure to maintain such records may be grounds for denial of reimbursement for meals served claimed during the period covered by the records in question. The costs of meals served to adults performing necessary food service labor may be included in the claim. Under no circumstances may a sponsor claim the cost of any disallowed meals as operating costs.

(6) A final Claim for Reimbursement shall be postmarked or submitted to the State agency not later than 60 days after the last day of the month covered by the claim. State agencies may establish shorter deadlines at their discretion. Claims not filed within the 60 day deadline shall not be paid with Program funds unless FNS determines that an exception should be granted. The State agency shall promptly take corrective action with respect to any Claim for Reimbursement as determined necessary through its claim review process or otherwise. In taking such corrective action, State agencies may make upward adjustments in Program funds claimed on claims filed within the 60 day deadline if such adjustments are completed within 90 days of the last day of the month covered by the claim and are reflected in the final Program Operations Report (FNS-418). Upward adjustments in Program funds claimed which are not reflected in the final FNS-418 for the month covered by the claim cannot be made unless authorized by FNS. Downward adjustments in Program funds claimed shall always be made without FNS authorization, regardless of when it is determined that such adjustments are necessary.

(7) Payments to a sponsor must equal the amount derived by multiplying the number of eligible meals, by type, actually served under the sponsor's program to eligible children by the current applicable reimbursement rate for each meal type. Sponsors must be eligible to receive additional reimbursement for each meal served to participating children at rural or self-preparation sites.

(8) On each January 1, or as soon thereafter or as practicable, FNS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing any adjustment to the reimbursement rates described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section. Adjustments will be based upon changes in the series for food away from home of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers since the establishment of the rates. Higher rates will be established for Alaska and Hawaii, based on the CPI for those States.

(9) Sponsors of camps shall be reimbursed only for meals served to children in camps whose eligibility for Program meals is documented. Sponsors of NYSP sites shall only claim reimbursement for meals served to children enrolled in the NYSP.

(10) If a State agency has reason to believe that a sponsor or food service management company has engaged in unlawful acts in connection with Program operations, evidence found in audits, reviews, or investigations shall be a basis for nonpayment of the applicable sponsor's claims for reimbursement.

(g) Unused reimbursement. If a sponsor receives more reimbursement than expended on allowable costs, the sponsor should use this unused reimbursement to improve the meal service or management of the Program. Unused reimbursement remaining at the end of the Program year must be used to pay allowable costs of other Child Nutrition Programs or for SFSP operations the following Program year.

(1) If a sponsor does not return to participate in the Program the following year and does not operate any other Child Nutrition Programs, the sponsor is not required to return the unused reimbursement to the State agency.

(2) [Reserved]

8. In § 225.11, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 225.11 Corrective action procedures.

(g) Technical assistance for improved meal service. If the State agency finds that a sponsor is operating a program with poor quality meal service and is operating below the reimbursement level, the State agency should provide technical assistance to the sponsor to improve the meal service.

9. In § 225.12, revise the second sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 225.12 Claims against sponsors.

(a) * * * State agencies shall consider claims for reimbursement not properly payable if a sponsor's records do not support all meals claimed and include all costs associated with the Program sufficient to justify that reimbursements were spent only on allowable Child Nutrition Program costs. * * *

10. In § 225.13, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 225.13 Appeal procedures.

(b) * * *

(1) The sponsor or food service management company be advised in writing of the grounds upon which the State agency based the action. The notice of action shall also state that the sponsor or food service management company has the right to appeal the State's action. The notice is considered to be received by the sponsor or food service management company when it is delivered by certified mail, return receipt (or the equivalent private delivery service), by facsimile, or by email. If the notice is undeliverable, it is considered to be received by the sponsor or food service management company five days after being sent to the addressee's last known mailing address, facsimile number, or email address;

11. In § 225.14, revise paragraphs (d)(3) introductory text and (d)(3)(i) to read as follows:
§ 225.14 Requirements for sponsor participation.

(d) * * *

(3) Sponsors which are units of local, municipal, county, or State government, and sponsors which are private nonprofit organizations, will only be approved to administer the Program at sites where they have administrative oversight. Administrative oversight means that the sponsor shall be responsible for:

(i) Maintaining contact with meal service staff, ensuring that there is adequately trained meal service staff on site, monitoring the meal service throughout the period of Program participation, and terminating meal service at a site if staff fail to comply with Program regulations; and

12. In § 225.15: a. Add paragraph (a)(4); b. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the term “§ 225.9(d)(4)” and add in its place the term “§ 225.9(d)(5)”; and c. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1), the second sentence of paragraph (m)(4) introductory text, and paragraphs (m)(4)(xii) and (m)(5) and (6).

The addition and revisions read as follows:

§ 225.15 Management responsibilities of sponsors.

(a) * * *

(4) Sponsors must maintain documentation of a nonprofit food service including copies of all revenues received and expenses paid from the nonprofit food service account. Program reimbursements and expenditures may be included in a single nonprofit food service account with funds from any other Child Nutrition Programs authorized under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, except the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. All Program reimbursement funds must be used solely for the conduct of the nonprofit food service operation. The net cash resources of the nonprofit food service of each sponsor participating in the Program may not exceed one month's average expenditures for sponsors operating only during the summer months and three months' average expenditures for sponsors operating Child Nutrition Programs throughout the year. State agency approval shall be required for net cash resources in excess of the requirements set forth in this paragraph (a)(4). Sponsors shall monitor Program costs and, in the event that net cash resources exceed the requirements outlined, take action to improve the meal service or other aspects of the Program.

(c) * * *

(1) Sponsors shall maintain accurate records justifying all meals claimed and documenting that all Program funds were spent only on allowable Child Nutrition Program costs. * * *

(m) * * *

(4) * * * Sponsors that are schools or school food authorities and have an exclusive contract with a food service management company for year-round service, and sponsors whose total contracts with food service management companies will not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold in 2 CFR part 200, as applicable, shall not be required to comply with these procedures. * * *

(xii) All bids in an amount which exceeds the lowest bid and all bids totaling the amount specified in the small purchase threshold in 2 CFR part 200, as applicable, or more are submitted to the State agency for approval before acceptance. State agencies shall respond to a request for approval of such bids within 5 working days of receipt.

(5) Each food service management company which submits a bid exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold in 2 CFR part 200, as applicable, shall obtain a bid bond in an amount not less than 5 percent nor more than 10 percent, as determined by the sponsor, of the value of the contract for which the bid is made. A copy of the bid bond shall accompany each bid.

(6) Each food service management company which enters into a food service contract exceeding the small purchase threshold in 2 CFR part 200, as applicable, with a sponsor shall obtain a performance bond in an amount not less than 10 percent no more than 25 percent of the value of the contract for which the bid is made, as determined by the State agency. Any food service management company which enters into more than one contract with any one sponsor shall obtain a performance bond covering all contracts if the aggregate amount of the contracts exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold in 2 CFR part 200, as applicable. Sponsors shall require the food service management company to furnish a copy of the performance bond within ten days of the awarding of the contract.

13. In § 225.17, add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 225.17 Procurement standards.

(f) All contracts in excess of $10,000 must contain a clause allowing termination for cause or for convenience by the sponsor including the manner by which it will be effected and the basis for settlement.

Dated: May 16, 2018. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11806 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 400 General Administrative Regulations; Administrative Remedies for Non-Compliance AGENCY:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

This document contains necessary amendments to address corrections in the General Administrative Regulations; Administrative Remedies for Non-Compliance regulations which contain outdated references.

DATES:

Effective June 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Miller, Director, Reinsurance Services Division, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0801, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720-9830.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

This correction is being published to correct the General Administrative Regulations; Subpart R—Administrative Remedies for Non-Compliance regulations. The outdated reference to “7 CFR part 3017” will be removed and replaced by the correct reference of “2 CFR parts 180 and 417” in §§ 400.451 and 400.456.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 400

Administrative practice and procedure, Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 400 is corrected by making the following amendments:

PART 400—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 400 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(o).

§ 400.451 [Amended]
2. Amend § 400.451 paragraph (a) by removing the reference to “7 CFR part 3017” and adding in its place “2 CFR parts 180 and 417”.
§ 400.456 [Amended]
3. Amend § 400.456, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) by removing the references to “7 CFR part 3017” and adding in their place “2 CFR parts 180 and 417”. Signed in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2018. Martin R. Barbre, Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2018-11799 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0471; Special Conditions No. 25-728-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Series Airplanes; Installed Rechargeable Lithium Batteries AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of rechargeable lithium batteries.

The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Textron Aviation Inc. on June 1, 2018. Send comments on or before July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2018-0471 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3160; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the Federal Register for public comment. These special conditions have been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same reason, good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for their new Model 700 series airplanes. The Textron Model 700 series airplanes are transport-category, twin turbofan-powered airplanes with standard seating provisions for up to 12 passengers and 2 crewmembers, and a maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Textron must show that the Model 700 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-139, 25-141, and 25-143.

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

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Textron Model 700 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Textron Model 700 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

The installation of rechargeable lithium batteries. Known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flightdeck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater-locator-beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network/communication systems, communication management units, and remote monitor electronic line replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment and communications equipment including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seat belt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet/in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes and handsets; and

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment and security systems.

Discussion

Rechargeable lithium batteries are considered to be a novel or unusual design feature in transport category airplanes, with respect to the requirements in § 25.1353. This type of battery has certain failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on transport category airplanes. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Special Condition 1 requires that each individual cell within a battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special Condition 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special Condition 2 requires that the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special Conditions 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the cells and battery are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special Conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory, and the FAA does not provide further explanation for them at this time.

Special Condition 4 clarifies that the flammable-fluid fire-protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Rechargeable lithium batteries contain electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special Condition 5 requires each rechargeable lithium battery installation to not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition. Special Condition 6 requires each rechargeable lithium battery installation to have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions 5 and 6 may be the same, but they are independent requirements addressing different hazards. Special Condition 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, whereas special condition 6 addresses heat.

Special Condition 9 requires rechargeable lithium batteries to have “automatic” means, for charge rate and disconnect, due to the fast acting nature of lithium battery chemical reactions. Manual intervention would not be timely or effective in mitigating the hazards associated with these batteries.

These special conditions will apply to all rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123. Section 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123 will remain in effect for other battery installations.

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

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 700 series airplane. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 series airplane:

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123, each rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure, and automatically control the charge rate of each cell to protect against adverse operating conditions, such as cell imbalance, back charging, overcharging and overheating.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flight crew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a monitoring and warning feature that alerts the flightcrew when its charge state falls below acceptable levels if its function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

9. Have a means to automatically disconnect from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure or battery failure.

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 23, 2018. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11455 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1063; Product Identifier 2017-SW-088-AD; Amendment 39-19291; AD 2018-11-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, and SA-365C2 helicopters. This AD requires establishing a life limit of 2,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) for the Starflex star/mast connecting bolt (bolt) and removing from service each bolt that exceeds its life limit. This AD is prompted by the discovery that the bolt's life limit was not included in helicopter maintenance records. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective June 18, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by July 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1063; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

Discussion

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-0115-E, dated June 16, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, and SA-365C3 helicopters. EASA advises that the 2,000 flight hour life limit for the bolts was not referenced in the helicopter maintenance documentation. EASA states that some helicopters are therefore likely to continue flying with these bolts past their life limit. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to bolt failure, resulting in main rotor mast, hub or blade damage and reduced helicopter control, EASA advises. As a result, the EASA AD requires replacing the bolts if they have reached or exceeded 2,000 flight hours, if the bolt part number (P/N) cannot be identified, or if the number of flight hours of the bolt is not known. The EASA AD also requires maintaining the continuous airworthiness records for the bolts.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. SA365 65.51, Revision 0, dated June 2, 2016. This service information establishes a life limit of 2,000 flight hours for certain bolts installed on Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, and SA-365C3 helicopters and specifies replacing the bolts if necessary.

AD Requirements

This AD requires the following before further flight:

• Removing from service any bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 that has accumulated 2,000 or more hours TIS or any bolt for which the hours TIS is unknown. Thereafter, removing from service each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 before it accumulates 2,000 hours TIS.

• Removing from service any bolt with a P/N not listed in the AD or any bolt for which you cannot determine the P/N.

• Creating a component history card or equivalent record for each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 and recording a life limit of 2,000 hours TIS.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C3 helicopters. This AD does not because the SA-365C3 helicopter has no FAA type certificate.

Costs of Compliance

There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. We believe it is therefore unlikely that we will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. operators.

Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-11-03 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19291; Docket No. FAA-2017-1063; Product Identifier 2017-SW-088-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, and SA-365C2 helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a Starflex star/mast connecting bolt (bolt) remaining in service beyond its fatigue life. This condition could result in failure of a bolt, leading to failure of the main rotor blade mast, hub, or blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective June 18, 2018.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

Before further flight:

(1) Remove from service any bolt part number (P/N) 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 that has accumulated 2,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), or any bolt for which the hours TIS is unknown. Thereafter, remove from service each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, or 365A31-1143-20 before accumulating 2,000 hours TIS.

(2) Remove from service any bolt with a P/N not listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD or for which the P/N is unknown.

(3) Create a component history card or equivalent record for each bolt P/N 365A31-1182-20, 365A31-1182-21, 365A31-1183-20, 365A31-1183-21, 365A31-1928-20, and 365A31-1143-20 and record a life limit of 2,000 hours TIS.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(g) Additional Information

(1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 65.51, Revision 0, dated June 2, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0115-E, dated June 16, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-1063.

(h) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220, Main Rotor Head.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 16, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11446 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 200 and 201 [Release No. 34-83325] Technical Amendments to Rules of Practice and Rules of Organization; Conduct and Ethics; and Information and Requests AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) is making technical amendments to certain rules of organization and rules of practice to indicate that Commission materials will no longer be compiled and published as the “SEC Docket” (“SEC Docket” or “Docket”), but will continue to be available on the SEC public website.

DATES:

Effective Date: June 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hannah Riedel, Senior Counsel, (202) 551-5150, Office of the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission or J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary, (202) 551-5400, Office of the Secretary, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-9150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In 1972, the Commission began compiling and publishing Commission orders and rulemaking releases in an SEC Docket for weekly dissemination to the public. The Commission has determined that publishing the SEC Docket is no longer a cost-efficient way to disseminate information to the public because all materials appearing in the SEC Docket have already been posted upon release on the SEC public website at www.sec.gov.

In 2013, facing increases in publication costs and dwindling subscription numbers, the Commission began publishing the Docket electronically on the SEC website. Producing and posting the SEC Docket electronically continues to require significant staff resources. The Office of the Secretary estimates that approximately 600 staff hours are expended annually to prepare the Docket. Moreover, with Docket materials already posted elsewhere on the website several weeks before the Docket is completed and published, the Docket generally receives less than 0.01% of all SEC website traffic.

Accordingly, the Commission plans to immediately discontinue publication of the SEC Docket but to continue posting these materials on the SEC website in real time. In light of this change, the Commission is adopting technical amendments to Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations to eliminate references to the SEC Docket and, where appropriate, replace references to the SEC Docket with references to the SEC website.

II. Administrative Law Matters

The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), that these revisions relate solely to agency organization, procedures, or practice and do not constitute a substantive rule. Accordingly, the APA's provisions regarding notice of rulemaking, opportunity for public comment, and advance publication of the amendments are not applicable.1 For the same reason, and because these amendments do not affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, the provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act are not applicable.2 Additionally, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which apply only when notice and comment are required by the APA or other law, are not applicable.3 These amendments do not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.4 Further, because the amendments impose no new burdens on private parties, the Commission does not believe that the amendments will have any impact on competition for purposes of Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act.5

1 5 U.S.C. 553.

2 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).

3 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

4 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.

5 15 U.S.C. 78w.

III. Statutory Authority

These technical amendments are adopted pursuant to statutory authority granted to the Commission under Section 23(a) of the Exchange Act.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 200 and 201

Administrative practice and procedure.

Text of Amendments

For the reasons set out above, the Commission is amending Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200—ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND REQUESTS Subpart D—Information and Requests 1. The authority citation for Part 200, Subpart D, continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 77f(d), 77s, 77ggg(a), 77sss, 78m(F)(3), 78w, 80a-37, 80a-44(a), 80a-44(b), 80b-10(a), and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 200.80 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, (c)(1)(ii), and (e)(8)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 200.80 Commission records and information.

(a) * * *

(2) Records available for public inspection and copying; documents published and indexed. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the following materials are available for public inspection and copying from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., E.T., at the public reference room located at 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC.

(c)(1) * * *

(ii) All regional offices of the Commission have available for public examination the materials set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and the SEC News Digest and other SEC publications. Blank forms as well as other general information about the operations of the Commission described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may also be available at particular regional offices.

(e) * * *

(8) * * *

(ii) The Commission publishes daily the SEC News Digest, which summarizes the releases published by the Commission each day, contains Commission announcements, and lists certain filings with the Commission.

3. Section 200.80b is revised to read as follows:
§ 200.80b Appendix B—SEC releases.

Free mailing list distribution of releases has been discontinued by the Commission because of rising costs and staff limitations. However, the texts of all releases under the various Acts, the corporate reorganization releases, and the litigation releases are available on the SEC website. Statistical series releases are contained in the SEC Monthly Statistical Review, which may be purchased through the Superintendent of Documents as described in § 200.80c.

PART 201—RULES OF PRACTICE Subpart D—Rules of Practice 4. The authority citation for Part 201, Subpart D, continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77h-1, 77j, 77s, 77u, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c(b), 78d-1, 78d-2, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78o-3, 78s, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78v, 78w, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-37, 80a-38, 80a-39, 80a-40, 80a-41, 80a-44, 80b-3, 80b-9, 80b-11, 80b-12, 7202, 7215, and 7217.

5. Section 201.360 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d)(2) to read as follows:
§ 201.360. Initial decision of hearing officer and timing of hearing.

(c) Filing, service and publication. The Secretary shall promptly serve the initial decision upon the parties and shall promptly publish notice of the filing thereof on the SEC website; provided, however, that in nonpublic proceedings no notice shall be published unless the Commission otherwise directs.

(d) * * *

(2) If a party or aggrieved person entitled to review fails to file timely a petition for review or a motion to correct a manifest error of fact in the initial decision, and if the Commission does not order review of a decision on its own initiative, the Commission will issue an order that the decision has become final as to that party. The decision becomes final upon issuance of the order. The order of finality shall state the date on which sanctions, if any, take effect. Notice of the order shall be published on the SEC website.

Subpart F—Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans 6. The authority citation for Part 201, Subpart F, continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 77h-1, 77s, 77u, 78c(b), 78d-1, 78d-2, 78u-2, 78u-3, 78v, 78w, 80a-9, 80a-37, 80a-39, 80a-40, 80b-3, 80b-11, 80b-12, and 7246.

7. Section 201.1103 is revised to read as follows:
§ 201.1103 Notice of proposed plan and opportunity for comment by non-parties.

Notice of a proposed plan of disgorgement or a proposed Fair Fund plan shall be published on the SEC website and in such other publications as the Commission or the hearing officer may require. The notice shall specify how copies of the proposed plan may be obtained and shall state that persons desiring to comment on the proposed plan may submit their views, in writing, to the Commission.

By the Commission.

Dated: May 24, 2018. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11618 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0307] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Lake of the Ozarks, Bagnell, MO AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Osage arm of the Lake of the Ozarks from mile marker (MM) 0.0 to MM 0.4 in Bagnell, MO. This special local regulation is necessary to protect the public, participants, spectators, and the marine environment from potential hazards during the Lake Race 2018. Entry of persons or vessels into this regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on June 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0307 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 LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2568, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile marker 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. This special local regulation must be established by June 2, 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 special local regulation until after the scheduled date of the power boat race and compromise public safety.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary 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 the public interest because immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety the public, participants, spectators, and the marine environment during the power boat race.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Lake Race 2018 occurring on June 2, 2018 will be a safety concern for persons and vessels within four tenths of a mile stretch of the Osage arm of the Lake of the Ozarks. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of the public, participants, spectators, and the marine environment in the regulated area before, during, and after the Lake Race 2018.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on June 2, 2018 on all navigable waters of the Osage arm of the Lake of the Ozarks from mile marker (MM) 0.0 to MM 0.4 in Bagnell, MO. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to protect the public from the power boat race before, during, and after the event. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.

All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the regulated area.

Spectator vessels desiring to enter, transit through or within, or exit the regulated area may do so only with permission from the COTP or a designated representative, and when permitted, must operate at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.

The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this regulated area through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices 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, location, duration, and time-of-day for the special local regulation. This special local regulation cover a less than half-mile stretch of the arm of the Osage arm of the Lake of the Ozarks for eleven hours on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the regulated area.

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 regulated area 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 special local regulation lasting eleven hours on a four-tenths of a mile stretch of the Osage arm of the Lake of the Ozarks. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 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 100

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

2. Add § 100.35T08-0307 to read as follows:
§ 100.35T08-0307 Special Local Regulation; Lake of the Ozarks, Bagnell, MO.

(a) Location. The following area is a special local regulation: All navigable waters of the Osage arm of the Lake of the Ozarks from mile marker (MM) 0.0 to MM 0.4 in Bagnell, MO.

(b) Effective period. This section is effective from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m. on June 2, 2018.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.35, entry into this regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”.

(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the regulated area.

(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger participants in the regulated area or any other vessels.

(4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.

(5) Spectator vessels may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the regulated area and remain moored through the duration of the event.

(6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

(7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

(8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the event.

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this regulated area through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate.

Dated: May 25, 2018. Scott A. Stoermer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2018-11774 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0447] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Harlem River, Bronx, New York 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 Broadway Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 6.8, at Bronx, New York. This temporary deviation is necessary to allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate replacement of the middle track.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on June 9, 2018 to 5 p.m. on August 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0447 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 Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 212-514-4336, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

New York City Transit, the bridge owner, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate replacement of the middle track. The Broadway Bridge across the Harlem River, mile 6.8, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 24 feet at mean high water and 29 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.789(b)(1).

Under this temporary deviation, the Broadway Bridge shall remain in the closed position between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. on June 9, June 16, June 23, June 30, August 4 and August 11, 2018; and between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. on June 17, July 1, August 5 and August 12, 2018.

The waterway is transited by commercial and recreational traffic. The Coast Guard notified known commercial vessel operators that transit the area, including the Sandy Hook Pilots Association and the local Tug/Tow Committee; there were no objections to this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will 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 vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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. 2018-11770 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0386] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel and Long Creek, Nassau County, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Long Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 4.7, and the Loop Parkway Bridge across Long Creek, mile 0.7, at Nassau County, New York. This deviation is necessary to facilitate a fireworks display and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for two and a half hours.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. June 30, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on July 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0386, 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 Stephanie Lopez, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4335, email [email protected]l.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Town of Hempstead Department of Public Works requested this temporary deviation and both Nassau County, the owner of the Long Beach Bridge, and the New York State Department of Transportation, the owner of the Loop Parkway Bridge, concur with the request to deviate from the normal operating schedules to facilitate the “Annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.”

The Long Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 4.7, has a vertical clearance of 22 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.799(g). The Loop Parkway Bridge across Long Creek, mile 0.7, has a vertical clearance of 21 feet at mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.799(f).

The temporary deviation will allow both bridges to remain closed from 9:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2018 with rain date of July 1, 2018. Reynolds Channel and Long Creek are transited by seasonal recreational vessels and commercial vessels. Coordination with Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound has indicated no mariner objections to the proposed short-term closure of the bridges.

Vessels that can pass under the bridges without an opening may do so at all times. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies. There is 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 bridges so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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 25, 2018. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-11771 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0341] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sinepuxent Bay Harry Kelley (Route 50) Bridge, Ocean City, MD 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 Harry Kelley Bridge (Route 50), over Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, mile 0.5 at Ocean City, MD. The deviation is necessary to accommodate Ocean City Air Show. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in their closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

The deviation is effective from 4:30 p.m. on June 16, 2018, until 5 p.m. on June 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0341], 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 Ms. Kashanda Booker, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-6227, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The event director, Ocean City, Maryland, Department of Emergency Services, with approval from the Maryland State Highway Administration, who owns and operates the U.S. 50 (Harry Kelly) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2017 Ocean City Air Show. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 13 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.559. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on June 16 and 17, 2018. The Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

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 15, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-11772 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0455] Recurring Safety Zone; Rice's Landing Riverfest, Rice's Landing, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Rice's Landing Riverfest from June 8 through June 9, 2018, to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Rice's Landing, PA. During the enforcement periods, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 7 will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m., each day on June 8, 2018 and June 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Charles Morris, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Rice's Landing Riverfest in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 7 from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. each day on June 8, 2018 and June 9, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 2-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the Rice's Landing Riverfest, which covers a less than one-mile stretch of the Monongahela River. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all persons and vessel shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to Mariners (LNM), Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and/or through other means of public notice as appropriate at least 24 hours in advance of each enforcement.

Dated: May 25, 2018. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2018-11775 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0379] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile Markers 179 to 180, St. Louis, MO AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile markers 179 and 180, extending the entire width of the river. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on these navigable waters near the St. Louis Gateway Arch grounds during an air show practice and an air show/fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and property from potential damage and safety hazards during the air show evolutions. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from noon on July 3, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0379 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 LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile marker NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code UMR Upper Mississippi River 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. We must establish this safety zone by July 3, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the event 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 the rule is contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures necessary to respond to potential safety hazards associated with the air show evolutions.

The Fair St. Louis will be holding air shows and a fireworks display in the vicinity of the St. Louis Gateway Arch from mile marker (MM) 179 to MM 180 on the 4th of July. A practice session for the air shows will be held on July 3, 2018 from noon through 2 p.m. The air shows will take place on July 4, 2018 twice: Between the hours of 12:30 p.m. through 2 p.m., and 6:45 p.m. through 8:15 p.m. The fireworks display will take place from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this rule to provide for the safety of life and property during the air shows and the fireworks display. Over the years, there have been unfortunate instances of aircraft mishaps that involve crashing during performances at various air shows around the world. Occasionally, these incidents result in a wide area of scattered debris in the water that can damage property or cause significant injury or death to the public observing the air shows. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect the general public from hazards associated with the aerobatic and high speed aerial flight demonstrations. In addition, potential hazards associated with firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling embers or other debris. The COTP has determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks display. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of life and property on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the air show practice, the air shows, and the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from noon on July 3, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018. It will be enforced during four separate periods, once on July 3, 2018 from noon through 2 p.m., and three times on July 4, 2018 from noon to 2 p.m., from 6:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m., and from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile markers (MMs) 179 and 180, extending the entire width of the river, on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) in St. Louis, MO. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. The COTP or a designated representative may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at 314-269-2332. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), 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, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a one-mile stretch of the UMR for a total of seven and a half hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow 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 these rules. 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 Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 a total of seven and a half hours that will prohibit entry on a one-mile stretch of the UMR on July 3rd and 4th, 2018. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration 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.T08-0379 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0379 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, mile markers 179 to 180, St. Louis, MO.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile markers (MMs) 179 to 180, extending the entire width of the river, in St. Louis, MO.

(b) Effective period. This section is effective from noon on July 3, 2018 through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

(c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced as follows:

(1) On July 3, 2018, from noon through 2 p.m.; and

(2) On July 4, 2018, from noon through 2 p.m.; from 6:30 p.m. through 8:15 p.m.; and from 8:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m.

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at 314-269-2332.

(2) All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

(e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

Dated: May 24, 2018. S.A. Stoermer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi.
[FR Doc. 2018-11768 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0477] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Offshore Barrier Test, Lake Huron, North Lakeport, MI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 2000 yard radius of a portion of Lake Huron, MI. This zone is necessary to protect a Coast Guard Cutter and divers operating from the vessel as part of a test of a maritime oil recovery system.

DATES:

This temporary final rule is effective without actual notice from June 1, 2018 through 4 p.m. on June 2, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. May 30, 2018 through June 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0477 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 temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9564, or email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Detroit 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) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this offshore barrier test in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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 inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

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 Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with offshore barrier test from 7 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through 4 p.m. on June 2, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 2000 yard radius of the site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the offshore barrier test is being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on May 30 until 4 p.m. on June 2, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Huron, North Lakeport, MI, within a 2000 yard of position 43°08.7′ N, 082°26.5′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, 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 Lake Huron from 7 a.m. on May 30, 2018 through 4 p.m. on June 2, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) 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 (Public Law 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 4 days that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping 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.T09-0477 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0477 Safety Zone; Offshore Barrier Test, Lake Huron, North Lakeport, MI.

(a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Huron, North Lakeport, MI, within on a 2000 yard radius of position 43°08.7″ N, 082°26.5″ W (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced daily from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m. from May 30, 2018 until June 2, 2018.

(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.

(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.

(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

Dated: May 23, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2018-11646 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 202 [Docket No. 2018-5] Group Registration of Newspapers AGENCY:

U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulation governing the deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the Library of Congress to correct an inadvertent error.

DATES:

Effective June 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice, or Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration Policy and Practice, by telephone at 202-707-8040, or by email at [email protected] and [email protected]; or Anna Bonny Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by telephone at 202-707-8350, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 17, 2018, the Office published a final rule regarding the deposit requirements for certain types of literary works and musical compositions. 83 FR 2371 (Jan. 17, 2018) (“Deposit Requirements Final Rule”). Among other things, the Deposit Requirements Final Rule amended 37 CFR 202.19. On January 30, 2018, the Office published a final rule regarding the group registration of newspapers. 83 FR 4144 (Jan. 30, 2018 (“Group Newspaper Registration Final Rule”). The Group Newspaper Registration Final Rule also amended 37 CFR 202.19, but the amendments inadvertently eliminated a provision that had been added by the Deposit Requirements Final Rule. The Deposit Requirements Final Rule went into effect February 16, 2018. The Group Newspaper Registration Final Rule went into effect March 1, 2018.

Thus, the Copyright Office is amending 37 CFR 202.19 to correct this error.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202

Copyright.

Final Regulation

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 202, as follows:

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT 1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows: Authority:

17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.

2. Amend § 202.19 as follows: a. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2)(ix) as paragraph (d)(2)(x). b. Add a new paragraph (d)(2)(ix) to read as follows:
§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the Library of Congress.

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(ix) In the case of published literary monographs, the deposit of one complete copy of the best edition of the work will suffice in lieu of the two copies required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless the Copyright Office issues a demand for a second copy pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 407(d).

Dated: May 21, 2018. Karyn A. Temple, Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

Approved by:

Carla D. Hayden, Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2018-11841 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0058; FRL-9978-61—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional Haze Progress Report AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a revision to the Michigan state implementation plan (SIP). Michigan has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Michigan has also provided a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with the progress report.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0058. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6143, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

I. Background II. What is EPA's response to the comments? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I Background

States are required to submit a progress report every five years that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. See 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 their existing regional haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.

Michigan submitted its regional haze plan on November 5, 2010. EPA partially approved Michigan's regional haze plan into its SIP on December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71533).

As part of this action, EPA found that the State's submittal appropriately addressed the best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for some sources but failed to satisfy BART for two sources, namely St. Marys Cement (SMC) and Escanaba Paper Company. EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that included nitrogen oxide emission (NOx) limits for these two sources and sulfur dioxide emission limits for SMC to satisfy these requirements on December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71533).

In order to satisfy the requirements for BART for certain taconite ore processing facilities in Minnesota and Michigan, EPA promulgated a taconite FIP on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8706), and revised the taconite FIP on April 9, 2015 (81 FR 21672). In Michigan, the taconite facility impacted by this FIP is the Tilden Mining Company.

Michigan submitted its five-year progress report on January 12, 2016. The State submitted its determination of adequacy with the progress report.

The emission reductions from several Federal programs are contributing to visibility improvement in Michigan. In its regional haze plan, Michigan considered the emission reductions from the Tier 2 Gasoline, Heavy-duty Highway Diesel, Non-road Diesel, and a variety of Maximum Achievable Control Technology programs. Michigan also relied, in part, on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA issued a limited disapproval of Michigan's regional haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR and issued a FIP on June 11, 2012 replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (77 FR 33642).

EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48435), approving the Michigan regional haze progress report as a revision to the Michigan SIP, along with a proposed rule (82 FR 48473), that provided a 30-day public comment period.

The DFR states that if EPA received adverse comments, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal of the DFR in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA received adverse comments during the comment period, and the October 18, 2017 DFR approving the Michigan regional haze progress report was withdrawn on December 8, 2017 (82 FR 57836). The adverse comments received are addressed below.

EPA evaluated the Michigan submittal assessing the state's progress in implementing its regional haze plan during the first half of the first implementation period, as well as the statutory and regulatory background for Michigan's regional haze plan. The DFR also provided a description of the regional haze requirements addressed in the Michigan progress report.

II. What is EPA's response to the comments?

EPA received four comments on the DFR (82 FR 48435). In the first comment, New Jersey expressed concern over sources in Michigan impacting Class I areas in the northeast. The second and third comments were anonymous and dealt with Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) and regional trading programs, respectively. A fourth comment was not relevant to the rulemaking. We will address the comments here.

Comment #1—EPA received a comment from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) stating that EPA cannot approve the Michigan regional haze 5-year progress report because it is unclear how the State has addressed the request from the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states to reduce emissions from several electric generating units in Michigan. NJDEP noted that two of the facilities in Michigan identified by MANE-VU—Trenton Channel (Unit 9A) and Saint Clair (Unit 7)—have not reduced sulfur dioxide emissions and thus remain large uncontrolled sources of sulfur dioxide that adversely impact visibility in the MANE-VU region.

EPA's Response—Michigan is a member of the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (Midwest RPO), a collaborative effort of state governments and federal agencies to coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Midwest. During the first planning period of the regional haze program, the Midwest RPO and other regional planning organizations facilitated consultations between states to help in the determination of appropriate control strategies for regional haze. The adequacy of Michigan's consultation with other states and its responses to other states' requests for specific emissions reductions were reviewed in EPA's assessment of its regional haze SIP submitted in 2010. EPA approved Michigan's decision to not require source-specific controls at Trenton Channel (Unit 9A) and Saint Clair (Unit 7) at that time. Given this, NJDEP's comments regarding Michigan's response to the request from MANE-VU fall outside the scope of this rulemaking.

We do note, however, that the two sources specifically mentioned in NJDEP's comment, Trenton Channel Unit 9A and Saint Clair Unit 7, owned by DTE Energy, are tentatively scheduled to be shut down 1 in 2023.

1 According to testimony by DTE before the Michigan Public Service Commission, DTE “tentatively plans” to retire Trenton Channel Unit 9 and St Clair Unit 7. “Qualifications and Direct Testimony of Franklin D. Warren; DTE Electric Company's Application Proposed Notice of Hearing, Direct Testimony and Exhibits before the Michigan Public Service Commission” (April 17, 2017). The company has subsequently indicated that the coal fired power plant units will be replaced with a natural gas facility.

EPA concludes that Michigan has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h).

Comment #2—EPA received an anonymous comment that argued that EPA cannot approve the Michigan regional haze 5-year progress report because Michigan relies on FIPs which cannot be enforced by the public.

EPA's Response—We do not agree with the comment that measures contained in FIPs are not federally enforceable. Emission standards or limitations in a FIP are potentially subject to enforcement through action by citizens in the district courts of the United States. 42 U.S.C. 7604.

Comment #3—EPA received an anonymous comment that argued that EPA cannot approve the Michigan regional haze 5-year progress report because EPA should not be allowed to use regional trading programs to achieve BART reductions.

EPA's Response—The regulations governing progress reports do not include a requirement for states (or EPA) to ensure that all applicable regional haze requirements for the first planning period have been met by the existing plan. As such, this comment raises issues outside the scope of this rulemaking. We do note, however, that EPA's determination that states may rely on CSAPR, a regional trading program, to meet the BART requirements has been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

In summary, EPA disagrees that the points raised by the commenters prevent approval of the progress report. EPA finds that Michigan's progress report satisfies 40 CFR 51.308.

III. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is approving the Michigan regional haze progress report under the CAA as a revision to the Michigan SIP. EPA finds that Michigan has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. EPA also finds that Michigan has met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the progress report.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: May 16, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Regional Haze Progress Report” to follow the entry titled “Regional Haze Plan” to read as follows:
§ 52.1170 Identification of plan.

(e) * * *

EPA—Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Regional Haze Progress Report Statewide 1/12/2016 6/1/2018, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-11566 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0738; FRL-9978-57—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia or the Commonwealth). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states' SIPs must require stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to report annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). This emissions statement requirement also applies to stationary sources located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX. The SIP revision provides Virginia's certification that its existing emissions statement program satisfies the emissions statement requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving Virginia's emissions statement program certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as a SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0738. 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:

    Sara Calcinore, (215) 814 2043, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order to protect human health and the environment. In response to scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects, EPA promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every 5 years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

    On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective July 20, 2012, the Washington, DC-MD-VA area was designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area is comprised of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City. See 40 CFR 81.347.

    Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit, as a revision to their SIP, rules which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within marginal or above ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state. However, states may waive sources that emit under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).

    Additionally, portions of Virginia are included in the ozone transport region (OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. The OTR is comprised of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia and portions of Virginia. The areas designated as in the Virginia portion of the OTR are as follows: Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.1

    1See, e.g. “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; NSR in the Ozone Transport Region”, 71 FR 39570 (July 13, 2006) and 71 FR 890 (January 6, 2006).

    Pursuant to section 184(b)(2), any stationary source located in the OTR that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA section 184. Thus, states within the OTR are subject to plan (or SIP) requirements in CAA section 182(b) applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Also, section 182(f)(1) of the CAA requires that the plan provisions required for major stationary sources of VOC also apply to major stationary sources of NOX for states with ozone nonattainment areas. A major stationary source of NOX is defined as a stationary facility or source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of NOX. See CAA section 302(j).

    In summary, sources located within the portions of Virginia included in the OTR, including areas designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, that emit more than 50 tpy of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX are considered major sources and are subject to the same requirements as major stationary sources located in moderate or above nonattainment areas. These requirements include the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA section 182(f) and 184(b)(2). Sources located in designated marginal or above nonattainment areas must also submit an emissions statement as required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated previously, states may waive sources that emit less than the 25 tpy of NOX and 25 tpy of VOC threshold if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). States are required by section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA to submit, for approval into the state's SIP, rules requiring the sources described above to provide annual statements showing their actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state.

    The EPA published guidance on source emissions statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled, “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program” and in a March 14, 2006 memorandum titled, “Emission Statement Requirements Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation” (2006 memorandum). In addition, on March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule addressing a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) (2015 final rule). 80 FR 12264. The 2006 memorandum clarified that the source emissions statement requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) was applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and classified as marginal or above under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. Per EPA's 2015 final rule, the source emissions statement requirement also applies to all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    According to EPA's 2015 final rule, most areas that are required to have an emissions statement program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA's 2015 final rule states that, “If an area has a previously approved emissions statement rule in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.” In cases where an existing emissions statement rule is still adequate to meet the emissions statement requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement for approval into the SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In this statement, states should identify how the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are met by their existing emissions statement rule.

    In summary, Virginia is required to submit, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing emissions statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and covers the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.2

    2 EPA did not require Virginia or other states to certify that its existing SIP-approved emissions statement program continued to satisfy CAA requirements for areas in the OTR to have an emissions statement program.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On August 1, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program covers the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is at least as stringent as the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In its submittal, Virginia states that the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are contained under 9VAC5-20-160 (Registration) of the Virginia Administrative Code and are SIP-approved under 40 CFR 52.2420(c). According to Virginia, these provisions mandate that facilities emitting more than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC must submit emission statements to Virginia while those emitting less than 25 tpy must comply with inventory requirements.

    The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 that implement Virginia's emissions statement program were approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451).3 These provisions require the owner of any stationary source that emits 25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX and is located in an emissions control area designated under 9VAC5-20-206 (Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Control Areas) to submit an emissions statement to the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board by April 15 of each year for the emissions discharged during the previous calendar year.4 Emissions statements are required to be prepared and submitted in accordance with 9VAC5-20-121 (Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures), which references Virginia's January 1, 1993 document AQP-8 titled, “Procedures for Preparing and Submitting Emission Statements for Stationary Sources.” The provisions under 9VAC5-20-121 were also approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451).

    3 The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 were derived from VR120-02-31. EPA's May 2, 1995 direct final rulemaking (DFR) approved a SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia requesting the addition of provisions under VR120-02-31 paragraph B, which established Virginia's emissions statement program, and Appendix S (Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures), which described the procedure for preparing and submitting emissions statements for stationary sources, to the Virginia SIP. See 60 FR 21451. On March 6, 1992, the Virginia State Assembly enacted Chapter 216—an act to amend Section 9—77.7, Code of Virginia, which authorized reorganization of the Virginia Administrative Code, including reorganization of the air pollution control regulations, effective July 1, 1992. Beginning April 17, 1995, Virginia began publication of its air quality control regulations in the new format. On April 21, 2000, EPA approved a SIP revision from Virginia requesting the reorganization and renumbering of the Virginia SIP to match the recodification of Virginia's air pollution control regulations under the Virginia Administrative Code. See 65 FR 21315. As a result, the SIP-approved provisions under VR120-02-31 and Appendix S are now under 9VAC5-20-160 and 9VAC5-20-121, respectively.

    4 The emissions control areas defined under 9VAC5-20-206 include the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, the Fredericksburg Emissions Control Area, the Richmond Emissions Control Area, the Hampton Roads Emissions Control Area, and the Western Virginia Emissions Control Area. The Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area consists of the localities of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandra City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.

    EPA's review of the Commonwealth of Virginia's submittal finds that Virginia's existing, SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for emission statements for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas including such sources in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes 9VAC5-20-160 also requires sources located in portions of Virginia included in the OTR to submit required emission statements in accordance with CAA section 184 (OTR requirements) and 182 (plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas). Pursuant to CAA sections 182 and 184, Virginia is required to have an emissions statement program for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR. EPA finds the provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfy these requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184 because they apply to the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, which includes the Virginia localities within the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City), and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City). EPA also finds Virginia's emissions thresholds for sources that are required to submit an emissions statement meet the requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184. As stated above, 9VAC5-20-160 requires the owner of any stationary source located in an emissions control area that emits 25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX to annually submit an emissions statement. This 25 tpy threshold is equivalent to the threshold required by CAA section 182. As previously mentioned, per CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive sources that emit less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. Virginia does provide emissions inventories for nonattainment areas as required by CAA section 172(c)(3).5 Therefore, EPA has determined that 9VAC5-20-160, which is currently in the Virginia SIP, is appropriate to address the emissions statement requirements in section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    5See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” 80 FR 27255 (May 13, 2015).

    On March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10652), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA found the Commonwealth's August 1, 2017 emissions statement program certification to be approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and proposed to approve it as a revision to the Virginia SIP.

    EPA received public comments on our March 12, 2018 proposal to approve Virginia's emissions statement certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. All of the submitted comments were either supportive of or not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth's August 1, 2017 emissions statement program certification as a revision to the Virginia SIP.

    IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    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 31, 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 Virginia's certification that its existing SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding the entry “Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Name of
  • non-regulatory
  • SIP revision
  • Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City) as well as the portions of Virginia included in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City) 8/01/17 6/01/18, [Insert Federal Register citation] Certification that Virginia's previously SIP-approved regulations at 9VAC5-20-160 meet the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11570 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 [EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0021; FRL-9978-80—Region 7] Delegation of Authority to the States of Iowa; Kansas; Missouri; Nebraska; Lincoln-Lancaster County, NE; and City of Omaha, NE, for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Including Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Delegation of authority.

    SUMMARY:

    The States of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska and the local agencies of Lincoln-Lancaster County, Nebraska, and the city of Omaha, Nebraska, have submitted updated regulations for delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of NSPS, NESHAP, and MACT standards. The submissions cover new EPA standards and, in some instances, revisions to standards previously delegated. EPA's review of the pertinent regulations shows that they contain adequate and effective procedures for the implementation and enforcement of these Federal standards. This action informs the public of delegations to the above-mentioned agencies. All sources subject to the requirements of EPA regulations are also subject to the equivalent requirements of the above-mentioned state or local agencies. For the current, most up-to-date, status of delegations to the above-mentioned agencies, please refer to the web pages in the “What does this action do?” section of this document.

    DATES:

    This document is effective on June 1, 2018. The dates of delegation can be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of documents relative to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Road, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    Effective immediately, all notifications, applications, reports, and other correspondence required pursuant to the newly delegated standards and revisions identified in this document must be submitted with respect to sources located in the jurisdictions identified in this document, to the following addresses:

    Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Bureau, Wallace State Office Building, 502 E 9th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319.

    Kansas Department of Health and the Environment, Bureau of Air, 1000 SW Jackson Street, Suite 310, Topeka, Kansas 66612-1367.

    Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Air Pollution Control Program, PO Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176.

    Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 1200 “N” Street, Suite 400, P.O. Box 98922, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.

    Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department, Division of Environmental Public Health, Air Quality Section, 3140 “N” Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68510

    City of Omaha, Public Works Department, Air Quality Control Division, 5600 South 10th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68107.

    Duplicates of required documents must also continue to be submitted to the EPA Regional Office at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Paula Higbee at (913) 551-7028, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The supplementary information is organized in the following order:

    I. What does this action do? II. What is the authority for delegation? III. What does delegation accomplish? IV. What has been delegated? V. What has not been delegated? List of Delegation Tables Table I—NSPS, 40 CFR part 60 Table II—NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61 Table III—NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63 I. What does this action do?

    EPA is providing notice of an update to its delegable authority for implementation and enforcement of the Federal standards shown in the tables below to the states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. This action updates the delegation tables previously published at 80 FR 10596 (February 27, 2015). EPA has established procedures by which these agencies are automatically delegated the authority to implement the standards when they adopt regulations which are identical to the Federal standards. We then periodically provide notice of the new and revised standards for which delegation has been given. This document does not affect or alter the status of the listed standards under state or Federal law.

    For the current, most up-to-date, status of delegations to the above-mentioned agencies, please refer to the following web pages:

    Iowa https://go.usa.gov/xQ8yQ Kansas https://go.usa.gov/xQ8yE Missouri https://go.usa.gov/xQ8ym Nebraska https://go.usa.gov/xQ8yy II. What is the authority for delegation?

    1. Section 111(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to delegate authority to any state agency which submits adequate regulatory procedures for implementation and enforcement of the NSPS program. The NSPS are codified at 40 CFR part 60.

    2. Section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorizes EPA to delegate authority to any state or local agency which submits adequate regulatory procedures for implementation and enforcement of emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant standards are codified at 40 CFR parts 61 and 63, respectively.

    III. What does delegation accomplish?

    Delegation confers primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of the listed standards to the respective state and local air agencies. However, EPA also retains the concurrent authority to enforce the standards.

    IV. What has been delegated?

    Tables I, II, and III below list the delegated standards. Each item listed in the Subpart column has two relevant dates listed in each column for each state. The first date in each block is the reference date to the CFR contained in the state rule. In general, the state or local agency has adopted the applicable standard through the date as noted in the table. The second date is the most recent effective date of the state agency rule for which the EPA has granted the delegation. This document specifically addresses revisions to the columns for Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska and the local agencies of Lincoln-Lancaster County, Nebraska, and the city of Omaha, Nebraska. If there are no dates listed in the delegation table, the state has not accepted delegation of the standard and implementation of those standards reside with EPA.

    V. What has not been delegated?

    1. The EPA regulations effective after the first date specified in each block have not been delegated, and authority for implementation of these regulations is retained solely by EPA.

    2. In some cases, the standards themselves specify that specific provisions cannot be delegated. In such cases, a specific section of the standard details what authorities can and cannot be delegated. You should review the applicable standard in the CFR for this information.

    3. In some cases, the state rules do not adopt the Federal standard in its entirety. Each state rule (available from the respective agency) should be consulted for specific information.

    4. In some cases, existing delegation agreements between the EPA and the agencies limit the scope of the delegated standards. Copies of delegation agreements are available from the state agencies, or from this office.

    5. With respect to 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions (see Table III), EPA has determined that sections 63.6(g), 63.6(h)(9), 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f) cannot be delegated. Additional information is contained in 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2).

    List of Delegation Tables Table I—Delegation of Authority—Part 60 NSPS—Region 7 Subpart Source category State of Iowa State of Kansas State of
  • Missouri
  • State of Nebraska
    A General Provisions 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12; 12/30/13; Except 60.4; 60.9; and 60.10 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • D Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators for Which Construction is Commenced After August 17, 1971 1/20/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Da Electric Utility Steam Generating Units for Which Construction is Commenced After September 18, 1978 1/20/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Db Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units 1/20/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 07/01/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Dc Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units 1/20/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 07/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • E Incinerators 9/11/15
  • 4/22/17
  • 07/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Ea Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After December 20, 1989, and on or before September 20, 1994 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Eb Large Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced after September 20, 1994, or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Ec Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators for Which Construction Commenced after June 20, 1996 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • F Portland Cement Plants 9/11/15
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • G Nitric Acid Plants 9/11/15
  • 3/22/17
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Ga Nitric Acid Plants for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After October 14, 2011 8/14/12
  • 3/22/17
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • H Sulfuric Acid Plants 9/11/15 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • I Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • J Petroleum Refineries 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Ja Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 14, 2007 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • K Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After June 11, 1973, and Prior to May 19, 1978 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Ka Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 18, 1978, and Prior to July 23, 1984 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Kb Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • L Secondary Lead Smelters 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • M Secondary Brass and Bronze Production Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • N Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces for Which Construction is Commenced After June 11, 1973 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • Na Basic Oxygen Process Steelmaking Facilities for Which Construction is Commenced After January 20, 1983 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • O Sewage Treatment Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/01/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • P Primary Copper Smelters 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Q Primary Zinc Smelters 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • R Primary Lead Smelters 7/01/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • S Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/01/13
  • 5/13/14
  • T Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • U Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphoric Acid Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • V Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium Phosphate Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • W Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Superphosphate Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • X Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/01/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Y Coal Preparation Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • Z Ferroalloy Production Facilities 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • AA Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and on or Before August 17, 1983 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • AAa Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • BB Kraft Pulp Mills 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • BBa Kraft Pulp Mill Affected Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After May 23, 2013 CC Glass Manufacturing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • DD Grain Elevators 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • EE Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • GG Stationary Gas Turbines 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • HH Lime Manufacturing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • KK Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • LL Metallic Mineral Processing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • MM Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • NN Phosphate Rock Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/01/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • PP Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • QQ Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • RR Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • SS Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • TT Metal Coil Surface Coating 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • UU Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • VV Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • V Va Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After November 7, 2006 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • WW Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • XX Bulk Gasoline Terminals 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • AAA New Residential Wood Heaters 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • BBB Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • DDD Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • FFF Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • GGG Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • GGGa Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After November 7, 2006 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • HHH Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • III Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) AIR Oxidation Unit Processes 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • JJJ Petroleum Dry Cleaners 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • KKK Equipment Leaks of VOC from Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • LLL Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • NNN Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • OOO Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • PPP Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • QQQ VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • RRR Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • SSS Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • TTT Industrial Surface Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • UUU Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • VVV Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • WWW Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • AAAA Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units for Which Construction is Commenced After August 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 6, 2001 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • CCCC Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction is Commenced After November 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced on or After June 1, 2001 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • DDDD Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units that Commenced Construction On or Before November 30, 1999 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • EEEE Other Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction Commenced After December 9, 2004 or Modification or Reconstruction Commenced On or After June 16, 2006 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • FFFF Other Solid Waste Incineration Units that Commenced Construction On or Before December 9, 2004 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • IIII Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • JJJJ Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • KKKK Stationary Combustion Turbines 6/28/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 11/14/14
  • 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • LLLL New Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • OOOO Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution 6/30/12
  • 12/30/13
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • OOOOa Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution for which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After September 18, 2015 QQQQ New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces TTTT Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric Generating Units
    Table II—Delegation of Authority Part 61—NESHAP—Region 7 Subpart Source category State of Iowa State of Kansas State of Missouri State of
  • Nebraska
  • Lincoln-Lancaster County City of Omaha
    A General Provisions 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 701/10; 12/28/12; Except 61.04; 61.16; and 61.17 6/30/12; 12/30/13; Except 61.04; 61.16; and 61.17 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • B Radon Emissions from Underground Uranium Mines Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable. C Beryllium 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • D Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • E Mercury 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • F Vinyl Chloride 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • J Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • L Benzene Emissions from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • M Asbestos 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • N Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants 9/19/12
  • 3/22/17
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 07/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • O Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Primary Copper Smelters 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • P Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic Production Facilities 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 07/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • Q Radon Emissions From Department of Energy Facilities Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable. R Radon Emissions From Phosphogypsum Stacks Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable. T Radon Emissions From the Disposal of Uranium Mill Tailings Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable. V Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources) 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • W Radon Emissions From Operating Mill Tailings Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable Not delegable. Y Benzene Emissions From Benzene Storage Vessels 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • BB Benzene Emissions From Benzene Transfer Operations 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • FF Benzene Waste Operations 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/01
  • 7/21/10
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/09
  • 12/22/12
  • Table III—Delegation of Authority—Part 63 NESHAP—Region 7 Subpart Source category State of Iowa State of Kansas State of Missouri State of Nebraska Lincoln-
  • Lancaster County
  • City of Omaha
    A General Provisions 9/19/11
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10; 12/28/12; Except 63.6(f)(1), (g), (h)(1) and (h)(9); 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f); 63.8(f); 63.10(f); 63.12; 63.13; 63.14(b)(27) and phrase “and table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part”; 63.14(b)(35); (39) through (53); and (55) through (62); in 63.14(i)(1), the phrase “table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part”; and 63.15 6/30/12; 12/30/13; Except 63.13 & 63.15(a)(2) 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • F Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • G Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • H Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Equipment Leaks 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 0/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • I Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for Certain Processes Subject to the Negotiated Regulation for Equipment Leaks 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • J Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production 7/1/10; 11/14/14; Except 63.15 L Coke Oven Batteries 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • M National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • N Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks 9/19/12
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • O Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • Q Industrial Process Cooling Towers 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • R Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations) 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • S Pulp and Paper Industry 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • T Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 0/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • U Polymers and Resins Group I 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • W Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • X Secondary Lead Smelting 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • Y Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • AA/BB Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Plants/Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 12/9/16
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • CC Petroleum Refineries 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • DD Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 3/18/15
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • EE Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • GG Aerospace Industry Surface Coating Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 12/7/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • HH Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • II Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • JJ Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations 11/21/11
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • KK Printing and Publishing Industry 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • LL Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 10/15/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • MM Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Along Semichemical Pulp Mills 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • NN Wool Fiberglass Mfg (area sources) OO Tanks—Level 1 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • PP Containers 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 07/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • QQ Surface Impoundments 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • RR Individual Drain Systems 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • SS Closed Vent Systems, Control Devices, Recovery Devices and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a Process 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • TT Equipment Leaks—Control Level 1 Standards 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • UU Equipment Leaks—Control Level 2 Standards 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • VV Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • WW Storage Vessel (Tanks)—Control Level 2 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • XX Ethylene Manufacturing Process Units: Heat Exchange Systems and Waste Operations 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • YY Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards 10/8/14
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • CCC Steel Pickling-HCL Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • DDD Mineral Wool Production 7/29/15
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • EEE Hazardous Waste Combustors 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • GGG Pharmaceutical Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • HHH Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities 8/16/12
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • III Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production 8/15/14
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • JJJ Polymers and Resins Group IV 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • LLL Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 7/25/16
  • 3/22/17
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 9/11/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient Production 3/27/14
  • 7/25/16
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • NNN Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • OOO Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins 10/8/14
  • 7/25/16
  • 07/01/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • PPP Polyether Polyols Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • QQQ Primary Copper Smelting 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 6/13/16
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • TTT Primary Lead Smelting 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • UUU Petroleum Refineries 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • VVV Publicly Owned Treatment Works 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • XXX Ferroalloys Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • AAAA Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • CCCC Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • EEEE Organic Liquids Distribution (Non-Gasoline) 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • IIII Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • KKKK Surface Coating of Metal Cans 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • MMMM Surface Coating of Misc. Metal Parts and Products 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • NNNN Surface Coating of Large Appliances 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • OOOO Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • PPPP Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • QQQQ Surface Coating of Wood Building Products 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • RRRR Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • SSSS Surface Coating of Metal Coil 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • UUUU Cellulose Products Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • VVVV Boat Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • WWWW Reinforced Plastic Composites Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • ZZZZ Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 3/6/13
  • 10/23/13
  • 3/6/13
  • 11/14/14
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *only major sources
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • AAAAA Lime Manufacturing Plants 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • BBBBB Semiconductor Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • CCCCC Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • DDDDD Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 11/20/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • FFFFF Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • GGGGG Site Remediation 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • IIIII Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing 12/4/15
  • 7/30/17
  • KKKKK Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • LLLLL Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 07/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • MMMMM Flexible Poly-urethane Foam Fabrication Operation 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • NNNNN Hydrochloric Acid Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • PPPPP Engine Test Cells/Stands 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • QQQQQ Friction Materials Manufacturing Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 07/01/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • RRRRR Taconite Iron Ore Processing 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • SSSSS Refractory Products Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • TTTTT Primary Magnesium Refining 071/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • UUUUU Coal and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • WWWWW Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • YYYYY Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities or Stainless and Non-stainless Steel Manufacturing (EAFs) 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • ZZZZZ Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • BBBBBB Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminal, Bulk Plant and Pipeline Facilities 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • CCCCCC Gasoline Distribution, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 1/24/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • DDDDDD PVC & Copolymer Production 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • EEEEEE Primary Copper Smelting 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • FFFFFF Secondary Copper Smelting 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • GGGGGG Primary Nonferrous Metal 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • HHHHHH Paint Stripping Operations, Misc. Surface Coating, Autobody Refinishing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • JJJJJJ Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • LLLLLL Acrylic/Modacrylic Fibers Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • MMMMMM Carbon Black Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 05/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • NNNNNN Chromium Compounds 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • OOOOOO Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication and Production 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • PPPPPP Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • QQQQQQ Wood Preserving 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • RRRRRR Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • SSSSSS Pressed & Blown Glass Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • TTTTTT Secondary Non-Ferrous Metals 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • 7/1/11
  • 12/22/12
  • VVVVVV Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources 12/21/12
  • 9/10/14
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • WWWWWW Plating and Polishing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • XXXXXX Metal Fabrication and Finishing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • YYYYYY Ferroalloys Production 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17 *
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • ZZZZZZ Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper and Other Nonferrous Foundries 071/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • AAAAAAA Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • BBBBBBB Chemical Preparations Industry 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • CCCCCCC Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing 9/19/11
  • 10/24/12
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • DDDDDDD Prepared Foods Manufacturing 12/23/11
  • 9/10/14
  • 7/1/10
  • 12/28/12
  • 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • EEEEEEE Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production Area Source Category 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • HHHHHHH Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production 7/1/15
  • 7/30/17
  • 7/1/13
  • 5/13/14
  • 7/1/13
  • 12/10/13
  • * At this time, Missouri is temporarily not accepting delegation for area source NESHAP requirements (40 CFR part 63, subparts WWWWW-YYYYYY) within the State of Missouri as described in an August 24, 2010 letter from MDNR to the U.S. EPA, Region 7.
    Summary of This Action

    All sources subject to the requirements of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 are also subject to the equivalent requirements of the above-mentioned state or local agencies.

    This document informs the public of delegations to the above-mentioned agencies of the above-referenced Federal regulations.

    Authority

    This document is issued under the authority of sections 101, 110, 112, and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410, 7412, and 7601).

    Dated: May 21, 2018. Karen A. Flournoy, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11757 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0017; FRL-9978-93-Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; SC; Redesignation of the Greenville-Spartanburg Unclassifiable Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 22, 2018, the State of South Carolina, through the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina fine particulate matter (PM2.5) unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the “Greenville Area” or “Area”) to unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary and secondary annual PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The Greenville Area is comprised of Anderson, Greenville, and Spartanburg Counties in South Carolina. EPA is approving the State's request and redesignating the Area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS based upon valid, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the PM2.5 monitors in the Area are in compliance with the 1997 primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0017. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for PM2.5 (annual and 24-hour). The primary and secondary annual standards were each set at a level of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. The primary and secondary 24-hour standards were each set at a level of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter.

    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA and state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999, and deployed all air quality monitors by January 2001. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA designated areas across the country as nonattainment, unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/attainment 1 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from these monitors for calendar years 2001-2003.

    1 For the initial PM area designations in 2005 (for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of “unclassifiable/attainment” for areas that had monitors showing attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category “unclassifiable” for areas in which EPA could not determine, based upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby violations. EPA reserves the “attainment” category for when EPA redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.

    Greenville County, South Carolina, had a monitor with less than three years of data because the monitor had not been in operation for the full 2001-2003 period. Based upon the data that was obtained during its operation, the monitor indicated a potential to violate the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Also, Anderson and Spartanburg Counties had emissions and population levels that potentially contributed to the elevated concentrations of PM2.5 at the Greenville monitor in question. Therefore, EPA designated all three counties—Anderson, Greenville and Spartanburg—as unclassifiable for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    On January 22, 2018, South Carolina submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the Greenville Area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS now that there is sufficient data to determine that the Area is in attainment. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 13, 2018 (83 FR 10814), EPA proposed to approve the State's redesignation request. The details of South Carolina's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed action.

    II. Final Action

    EPA is approving South Carolina's redesignation request and redesignating the Greenville Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, this action merely redesignates an area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this action does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, because no tribal lands are located within the Area and the redesignation does not create new requirements, EPA has determined that this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Onis” Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. In § 81.341, the table entitled “South Carolina-1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS (Primary and secondary)” is amended under the heading “Greenville-Spartanburg, SC:” by revising the entries for “Anderson County”, “Greenville County”, and “Spartanburg County” to read as follows:
    § 81.341 South Carolina. South Carolina—1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date Type Greenville-Spartanburg, SC: Anderson County June 1, 2018 Unclassifiable/Attainment Greenville County June 1, 2018 Unclassifiable/Attainment Spartanburg County June 1, 2018 Unclassifiable/Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11833 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2016-0127; FXES11130900000 167 FF09E42000] RIN 1018-BB39 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (Hidden Lake Bluecurls) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; document availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are removing the plant Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (Hidden Lake bluecurls) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants on the basis of recovery. This action is based on a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats to T. a. ssp. compactum have been eliminated or reduced to the point where it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This rule also announces the availability of a post-delisting monitoring plan for T. a. ssp. compactum.

    DATES:

    This rule becomes effective July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2016-0127 or https://ecos.fws.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking will be available by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile (fax) 760-431-5901.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    G. Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008; telephone 760-431-9440; facsimile (fax) 760-431-5901. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Previous Federal Action

    In carrying out our responsibility to enforce the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), maintain the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). We added Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants in 1998 (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). On January 5, 2017, we proposed to remove this subspecies from the List.

    Please refer to the proposed delisting rule for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (82 FR 1296, January 5, 2017) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this subspecies.

    Subspecies Information

    Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum, a member of the Lamiaceae (mint family), was described by F. Harlan Lewis (1945) based on specimens collected in 1941, by M.L. Hilend at Hidden Lake in the San Jacinto Mountains of Riverside County, California. Trichostema a. ssp. compactum is a compact, soft-villous (with long, shaggy hairs), annual plant, approximately 4 inches (in) (10 centimeters (cm)) tall, with short internodes (stem segments between leaves), elliptic leaves, and blue flowers with a five-lobed corolla (Lewis 1945, pp. 280-281, 284-285; Lewis 1993, p. 732). For a detailed discussion and species description of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum, please see our proposed delisting rule (82 FR 1296, January 5, 2017).

    Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum is found only on the margins of Hidden Lake, a small montane vernal pool, in the San Jacinto Mountains, Riverside County, California. At an elevation of 8,700 feet (ft) (2,650 meters (m)), Hidden Lake is Riverside County's only high-elevation vernal pool (Bauder 1999, pp. 3-4), and is owned and managed by Mount San Jacinto State Park (Park). Hidden Lake is located within a California State Park Natural Preserve (The Hidden Lake Divide Natural Preserve) and is surrounded by the Mount San Jacinto State Wilderness Area (CDPR 2002, pp. 62-63). The single pool that supports the entire range of T. a. ssp. compactum encompasses an area of approximately 2 acres (ac) (1 hectare (ha)) and is about 4 ft (1.3 m) deep during the period of maximum inundation (November to April) (Bauder 1999, p. 13; CDPR 2002, pp. 62-63). The pool shrinks in size as the seasons progress, sometimes remaining wet in the center and other times drying out completely.

    A small portion of the population (36 individuals) of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum was once observed less than 300 ft (91 m) outside of the Hidden Lake area of inundation (Fraga and Wall 2007, p. 10). This area is within the vernal pool's watershed, and is within the aforementioned Natural Preserve and State Wilderness. We do not consider this small group of individuals to be biologically separate from the rest of the population within the margins of Hidden Lake because the areas are in such close proximity to each other and are connected through the watershed.

    Several studies have examined the breeding system, habitat parameters, and micro-distribution of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum and its relatives (Lewis 1945, pp. 276-303; Lewis 1960, pp. 93-97; Spira 1980, pp. 278-284; Bauder 1999, pp. 1-41). Seeds of T. a. ssp. compactum typically germinate in early July, and plants complete their life cycle as the temperature begins to drop to freezing (October to November) (Fraga and Wall 2007, pp. 2-5). Plants generally flower between July and September, but flowering has been documented as late as November (Bauder 1999, p. 1; Fraga and Wall 2007, pp. 4-5). Fruits and seeds begin to develop in early August and continue to develop until November (Fraga and Wall 2007, pp. 2-5). Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum has no documented pollinators and is self-compatible (flowers are able to be fertilized by pollen from the same plant) (89.1 percent seed set with the exclusion of pollinators) (Spira 1980, p. 282). Spira (1980, p. 280) also found that insects visiting the other subspecies of T. austromontanum lacked pollen grains on their dorsal surface (which is needed for the transfer of pollen to stigma) and, therefore, were not acting as effective pollinators. More research is needed to investigate the importance of pollinators for reproduction and seed set of T. a. ssp. compactum.

    Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum produces seeds that contribute to a viable seed bank, which provides adaptability to variable environmental conditions. In nature, plants occur around the margins of Hidden Lake in open soil that is exposed during the summer after the water recedes (Bauder 1999, p. 37). A germination study of T. a. ssp. compactum was conducted by Bauder (1999) using controlled light and temperature growing chambers. Results from the study indicated that daily temperature maxima must be in the range of 77 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (25 to 30 degrees Celsius (°C)) for germination to occur (Bauder 1999, p. 37). This study also showed that seeds require a period of cold stratification and a cycle of wet and dry conditions to break their dormancy (Bauder 1999, pp. 28-30, 37). A large portion of the seeds produced by T. a. ssp. compactum did not germinate in this study and a subsequent germination study conducted by staff at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSABG). The authors of both reports suggested that seeds that do not germinate remain in the soil as a seed bank over multiple seasons until specific environmental and physiological conditions are met (Bauder 1999, p. 37; RSABG 2009, p. 5; see also Baskin and Baskin 1989, pp. 54-66).

    The soil seed bank provides a buffering mechanism for this taxon against the variability of its habitat conditions and periodic drought years. For example, there may be a year when Hidden Lake dries atypically fast or is subject to a seasonal inundation (e.g., from a late-summer thunderstorm), which may lead to a catastrophic loss of a standing population prior to seed set. Thus, a soil seed bank offsets the loss of seeds in poor years. This strategy helps Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum to remain viable in a variable environment, similar to other species adapted to vernal pool habitat or desert environments (Philippi 1993, pp. 481-484; Simovich and Hathaway 1997, pp. 41-43). Due to the complex nature of this strategy to be maintained through varied conditions, we recommend as part of the post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan to conduct research on seed bank density, seed viability, seed longevity, and reproductive potential of standing plants to better understand the long-term health of this subspecies and the likelihood that the small occurrence will remain viable.

    Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat

    Surveys have shown that the population size of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum differs greatly from year to year. This fluctuation may be due to the amount of precipitation, the extent of suitable habitat along the margins of the lake, or a combination of factors. The population has been documented to be as large as 243,000 individuals in 2012, to as few as 75 individuals in 2000 (Fraga and Wall 2010, p. 6; CNDDB 2011, p. 1; Fraga 2016, pers. comm.). Despite the annual differences in population size, the population is considered stable because the variation in population size is primarily due to natural factors and because similar variations are seen over a multi-year period.

    Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum seeds germinate around the margin of Hidden Lake as the ponded water evaporates (Bauder 1999, pp. 20-23). Though the highest density of plants has been observed in different portions of the vernal pool margin, observations of T. a. ssp. compactum were most abundant on the northern margin of the vernal pool (Fraga and Wall 2007, p. 4) and the eastern portion of the vernal pool (Fraga 2017, p. 3). These areas likely receive more sunlight due to the lack of trees just to the south where the pool is located. A small portion of the population is located in a swale (a low area where runoff collects) approximately 300 ft (91 m) away to the northeast from the vernal pool between the Desert View Overlook and Hidden Lake.

    Pre-Listing Threats

    Prior to listing, the Service and others were concerned that, without the protections and implementation of proper management actions, Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum could become in danger of extinction and possibly go extinct. Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum was subsequently listed as a threatened species due to vulnerabilities associated with trampling and due to its limited numbers (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). For a detailed discussion of pre-listing threats of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum, please see our proposed delisting rule (82 FR 1296, January 5, 2017).

    Recovery Implementation

    A formal recovery plan for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum has not been prepared, and, therefore, specific delisting criteria have not been developed for the subspecies. However, the Service reviewed the status of the subspecies in the 2006 and 2013 5-year reviews (Service 2006; 2013). In those reviews, the Service identified remaining threats to the taxon and actions that could be taken to make progress in addressing those threats and ensuring long-term management. These included demonstrating that: (1) Management by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) has been effective; (2) stochastic threats are not significant; and (3) sufficient seed is banked for reintroduction after an adverse stochastic event (Service 2013, pp. 14-15). Additionally, a Conservation Strategy was developed that outlined additional conservation actions for this taxon (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, entire). We identified in the 2009 Spotlight Species Action Plan (Service 2009, pp. 2-4, 6) specific actions that would ameliorate threats and ensure long-term management:

    (1) Continue Work With CDPR as Partners To Monitor Visitor Use at Hidden Lake;

    (2) Monitor the Population and Habitat of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum;

    (3) Complete Collections for Seed Banking;

    (4) Devise Long-Term Protocol for Seed Banking and Use of Seeds in Recovery; and

    (5) Finalize the Conservation Strategy and a Long-Term Management Plan for the Subspecies, and a Long-Term Agreement With CDPR That Will Include Established Monitoring and the Implementation of an Adaptive Management Plan.

    Existing conservation efforts for each of these actions are discussed below.

    (1) Continue Work With CDPR as Partners To Monitor Visitor Use at Hidden Lake

    Monitoring of visitor use at Hidden Lake was conducted by CDPR from 2007 to 2015 (Kietzer 2011a, pp. 4-5). Although unauthorized access to the area appears to have been minimized (Fraga and Wall 2010, p. 5; Kietzer 2011a, pp. 4-5), CDPR will continue to monitor visitor use as described in the PDM plan. This action has been fully implemented, and we expect implementation to continue as part of the PDM plan and Conservation Strategy.

    (2) Monitor Population and Habitat of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum

    In coordination with the Service, CDPR and RSABG developed a monitoring protocol for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum resulting from several years of investigation (2006 to 2009), which included mapping the area of occupancy of T. a. ssp. compactum around Hidden Lake and conducting census counts to estimate population size (Fraga and Wall 2010, pp. 4-6; Fraga 2012, pp. 1-4). Additionally, equipment for monitoring Hidden Lake's microclimate and its effects on the lake level was installed by CDPR in 2010 (Kietzer 2011a, pp. 2-3; Kietzer 2011b, p. 4). Over the past few years, CDPR and RSABG have worked together to develop and implement a more robust statistical sampling method. Initial results suggest that plant numbers were previously underestimated in annual surveys (Kietzer 2016, pers. comm.). Monitoring of this taxon and its habitat will continue as described in the PDM plan and Conservation Strategy.

    (3) Complete Collections for Seed Banking

    Collection of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum seeds and establishment of an ex situ (off-site) conservation seed bank at RSABG occurred over 3 years (2006, 2008, and 2009). As a precaution, backup samples from each year's collections will be stored at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Center for Genetic Resource Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado (Fraga and Wall 2010, p. 7). This action will provide insurance against the subspecies going extinct if the natural occurrence were extirpated due to an adverse stochastic event or other circumstances (such as disease or prolonged drought).

    (4) Devise Long-Term Protocol for Seed Banking and Use of Seeds in Recovery

    Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum seeds collected at Hidden Lake are being stored at RSABG. Additional germination trials are needed to determine a long-term protocol for seed banking and use of seeds to sustain recovery. This project is ongoing and is discussed in further detail in the PDM plan.

    (5) Finalize the Conservation Strategy and a Long-Term Management Plan for the Subspecies, and a Long-Term Agreement With CDPR That Will Include Established Monitoring and the Implementation of an Adaptive Management Plan

    The Conservation Strategy was used as the foundation for the PDM plan. Methods for long-term monitoring of this taxon are discussed further in the PDM plan (see ADDRESSES for information on viewing the PDM plan).

    Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We have considered all comments and information received during the comment period for the proposed rule to delist Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. In this final rule, we have made only minor changes based on comments received during the public comment period. We made changes in response to peer reviewer recommendations, and included an expanded discussion of stochastic events (such as wildfire) that could impact the subspecies and its habitat.

    Summary of Factors Affecting Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species on, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species because of any one or a combination of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. A species may be reclassified on the same basis.

    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered species or threatened species. Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of whether the species is still an endangered species or threatened species because of any of the five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened species, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and those that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting (i.e., reclassifying a species from an endangered species to a threatened species) and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.

    A species is an “endangered species” for purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is a “threatened species” if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future.” For this final delisting rule, our forecast of future impacts is based on a review of the period of available data for each potential threat and, when possible, a projection of the situation at least for a similar time period into the future. For example:

    • The effect of trampling on Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum can be addressed through management of hikers and equestrians, which CDPR does through implementing regulatory mechanisms. CDPR started addressing the impacts about the time the subspecies was listed, in particular with the Mount San Jacinto State Park general plan update in 2002. This plan serves as a “long-range management tool” by providing “conceptual parameters for future management actions” (CDPR 2002, p. 3). To assess the timeframe of this regulatory mechanism, we note that it does not include an “expiration date” or equivalent. Further, we note that in 2010, CDPR changed its approach to the duration of a given Park's general plan, stating in its Planning Handbook (CDPR 2010, p. 17) that CDPR previously considered general plans to have a 15- to 20-year planning horizon or lifespan. Under the current planning structure of broad, goal-oriented general plans and subordinate, more focused management plans, general plans are no longer thought of as having expiration dates or a finite lifespan when they would be considered invalid. General plans are reconsidered for amendments or revisions when circumstances and needs dictate, such as additional land acquisitions and/or substantial development considerations that were not addressed in the general plan or evaluated during the general plan process.

    Thus, for trampling, we have about a 15-year record of management actions to benefit Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum that are linked to the general plan's implementation, and because the general plan is a long-term document (more than 15 to 20 years), we expect that management will continue into the future for at least 20 years. At the future point when the general plan is updated, the public—including the Service—will have the opportunity to review and comment on the new general plan under the State's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process (independent of the subspecies' listing status).

    • The timeline for examining the effects of small populations is inherently difficult to assess, especially for an annual plant, and the effects are inherently difficult to address. This is especially true for a population that is naturally small, which is the case for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. Population trend data can help with that assessment. As detailed in the PDM plan, we have at least rough estimates of population size going back to 1979, though with a gap between 1993 and 2006, when more formalized monitoring began. Thus, we have a general idea about the population's size over a span of about 40 years.

    • Although information exists regarding potential impacts from climate change beyond a 50-year timeframe, the projections depend on an increasing number of assumptions, and thus become more uncertain with increasingly large timeframes. Therefore, a timeframe of 50 years is used to provide the best balance of scope of impacts considered, versus certainty of those impacts.

    A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    No threats to the habitat of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum were identified in the final listing rule (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). Habitat loss or alteration associated with land use and land management practices is not now a threat, nor do we expect it to be in the future. The land where T. a. ssp. compactum occurs is owned and managed by the Mount San Jacinto State Park and is located within a California State Park Natural Preserve, which is surrounded by the San Jacinto State Wilderness Area (CDPR 2002, pp. 62-63). Because the only known occurrence of this subspecies is on State-owned land designated as State Wilderness inside a State Park, and the Hidden Lake area has been designated as the Hidden Lake Divide Natural Preserve, the subspecies and its habitat are protected from any development or other modification of habitat. Some habitat disturbance from recreational activities has occurred in the past. As discussed below, surveys have been conducted at Hidden Lake in recent years, and observers found that habitat disturbances have been minimized (Fraga and Wall 2010, p. 5). We anticipate that these conditions will remain essentially the same in the future because of the CDPR's implementation of the Park's general plan.

    B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    As described in the proposed rule and reaffirmed here, there are no threats now nor are there likely to be any threats in the future to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum, throughout its range, related to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. For a detailed discussion of potential threats related to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, please see our proposed delisting rule (82 FR 1296, January 5, 2017).

    C. Disease or Predation

    No threats to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum were attributed to Factor C in the 1998 listing rule (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). We have no data to suggest that herbivory or disease are affecting T. a. ssp. compactum, nor do we have data that suggest impacts from these sources will become a threat in the future.

    D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In our discussions under Factors A, B, C, and E, we evaluate the significance of threats as mitigated by any conservation efforts and existing regulatory mechanisms. Where threats exist, we analyze the extent to which conservation measures and existing regulatory mechanisms address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one or more identified threats.

    Although inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was not specifically identified as a threat to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum at the time of listing, we did discuss the very limited number of protections that existed for the subspecies at that time (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). Specifically, we discussed conservation provisions under section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and land management of CDPR at the Park.

    Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)

    Under section 404 of the Federal CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States, which include navigable and isolated waters, headwaters, and adjacent wetlands (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any action with the potential to impact waters of the United States must be reviewed under the Federal CWA, National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and (when listed species may also be impacted) the Act. However, because the only known occurrence of this subspecies was on State-owned land designated as a State Wilderness inside a State Park, we concluded at the time the subspecies was listed that it was unlikely that fill materials will be discharged and thus protections associated with section 404 of the Federal CWA would not be relevant. Now, Hidden Lake is within an area designated by the State as a Natural Preserve, which itself is within State Wilderness. As such, we continue to conclude that it is unlikely that an action will occur that would trigger section 404 of the Federal CWA.

    California Department of Parks and Recreation

    As discussed above, the entire known distribution of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum occurs at a single vernal pool known as Hidden Lake, owned by the State of California and managed by CDPR. Under existing regulatory mechanisms enacted by the State of California, CDPR manages specifically for the conservation of the subspecies. While discussion of CDPR's management of many aspects of the conservation needs of the subspecies might also be appropriately discussed under other factors (e.g., eliminating trails to maintain natural drainage could also be discussed under factor A; efforts to reduce and manage impacts from recreational activities could also be discussed under factor E), it is included here for ease of discussion since CDPR's authority to provide for the continued conservation of the species flows from regulatory protections provided by State regulations, designations, and the Park's general plan. Such management was being implemented before listing and is being implemented today. Prior to listing, the protections included actions to reduce impacts from visitors by removing references to Hidden Lake from trail maps and signs. Since listing, the CDPR installed barriers in 2000, to exclude equestrian use of the area surrounding Hidden Lake (Guaracha 2006, pers. comm.), thereby reducing the threat of trampling to the subspecies (see Factor E discussion, below).

    As a part of the 2002 general plan for Mount San Jacinto State Park, CDPR designated Hidden Lake and its associated watershed area as the Hidden Divide Natural Preserve (Preserve) (CDPR 2002, pp. 62-63). As a Preserve, the 255-ac (103-ha) area is afforded regulatory protection under California Public Resources Code section 5019.71, which states, “[t]he purpose of natural preserves shall be to preserve such features as rare or endangered plant and animal species and their supporting ecosystems.” This allows CDPR to manage Hidden Lake specifically for the conservation of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum and other sensitive resources found in the area, as opposed to pre-designation when recreational use was part of management considerations. We summarize below the management actions CDPR has taken for the conservation of the subspecies associated with management under the natural preserve designation.

    With funding from the Service's Showing Success Grant Program (a Service initiative, discontinued in 2012, that provided funding for final actions needed to bring a species to the point it could be downlisted or delisted), CDPR conducted a survey of the Preserve boundary and erected signs along the official trail informing visitors that off-trail hiking is prohibited in the Preserve. Additionally, these funds were used to install an automated weather station, conduct monitoring of unauthorized visitors, and establish monitoring protocols for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum in coordination with RSABG and the Service, which will allow for future management of the area and visitors' activity based on the regulatory mechanisms now available. Due to the remote location, the weather station at Hidden Lake has been difficult to maintain, however, CDPR plans to resolve these issues in the future in order to obtain useful data from this station.

    Additionally, CDPR has recently constructed the Hidden Divide Trail to minimize impacts to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum from now-unauthorized access, while facilitating future authorized but restricted visits to the Preserve. This process involved eliminating an existing unauthorized trail and moving it approximately 20 to 40 ft (6 to 12 m) upslope and away from the margin of Hidden Lake where the largest portion of T. a. ssp. compactum occurs. The trail bed is incorporated into the existing slope where it should be easier, compared to the unauthorized trail, to maintain natural drainage patterns in the Hidden Lake's watershed. Inspections of the completed trail will take place by trained CDPR staff during peak seasons, and maintenance will occur as needed to prevent alteration of natural hydrology. The new Hidden Divide Trail will not directly connect to other Park trails and will remain off maps and unadvertised by Park staff. Once completed, CDPR will allow access to the trail through a limited permit system or guided tour only for those visitors who inquire about the site. Horses will not be allowed. The trail will provide some viewing areas with interpretive signs to educate visitors about the unique ecosystem supporting T. a. ssp. compactum. Fencing has been erected along the trail to restrict physical access to Hidden Lake; signs will also help minimize off-trail use.

    Based on the regulatory mechanisms now available, CDPR will increase visitor monitoring and begin a zero-tolerance program, issuing citations to off-trail visitors within the Preserve (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, pp. 16-17). Finally, adaptive management techniques will be applied. For example, CDPR will monitor Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum populations and visitor use of the Hidden Lake area; the combined information will allow CDPR to control visitation, minimizing impact to the subspecies and its habitat (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, p. 22).

    Additionally, Hidden Lake and the Hidden Divide Natural Preserve are within an area designated as State Wilderness. California Public Resources Code section 5019.68 recognizes such areas “as areas where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man and where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” California Public Resources Code sections 5093.30-5093.40, the California Wilderness Act, also states that wilderness areas, including Mount San Jacinto State Wilderness, “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, provide for the protection of such areas, [and] preserve their wilderness character.” As the Conservation Strategy for the subspecies notes, “Being within a Natural Preserve and a State Wilderness Area provides [Trichostema austromontanum] ssp. compactum the highest level of protection for natural resources that the State Park System has to offer” (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, p. 19). Thus, these regulatory mechanisms will help minimize the likelihood of future threats to T. a. ssp. compactum and its habitat at Hidden Lake.

    These protections enacted by the CDPR associated with the Preserve are expected to remain should this subspecies be delisted, and we conclude that these protections are adequate to reduce or eliminate existing or potential future threats to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum now and in the future.

    Summary of Factor D

    We conclude that, in absence of the protections afforded by the Act, the other existing regulatory mechanisms will continue to provide adequate protections to ensure that threats to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum are controlled through management and monitoring programs established by CDPR. Listing under the Act provided support for the Service and CDPR to establish management and monitoring programs to provide for the conservation of T. a. ssp. compactum. If this subspecies is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, the primary protections for T. a. ssp. compactum will be provided by CDPR through conservation actions to benefit the subspecies in the Preserve. These protections are applied in connection with the Park's existing general plan, and we expect that they will remain unchanged at least until a new plan is adopted, which would not occur until circumstances or needs dictate and, moreover, would not occur without the opportunity of review and comment by the Service and public. This, in turn, would likely mean that any changes to the protections provided by the new general plan would not result in substantial impacts to T. a. ssp. compactum. In conclusion, we find that the currently existing regulatory mechanisms described above are adequate, and they will remain adequate to protect T. a. ssp. compactum and its habitat across its range now and in the future.

    E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    In the 1998 final listing rule, we stated that Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum was particularly vulnerable to trampling by recreational visitors and that the subspecies' low numbers and extremely localized range further made it more susceptible to disturbance, which included trampling during the flowering season (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998, pp. 49016-49017). In our 2013 5-year review (Service 2013, pp. 13-14), we also identified effects associated with global climate change as potential threats, which were not considered at the time of listing. Trampling, low numbers of individuals, and climate change are discussed below.

    Trampling

    At the time of listing, we concluded that trampling was a threat to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum due to its extremely narrow endemic habitat and easy accessibility to Hidden Lake from the trail, just over a mile from the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). This site became increasingly popular with the development of the Tramway in 1964 and the Desert Divide Trail in 1979. Measures such as removing references to Hidden Lake from State Park interpretive materials and eliminating existing trails helped to ameliorate impacts from visitors, but did not prevent all trampling impacts. The 1998 listing rule (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998) indicated the subspecies continued to experience ongoing impacts from trampling by hikers and horses at that time.

    Since listing, CDPR, in cooperation with RSABG staff, finalized the Conservation Strategy for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (Hidden Lake bluecurls; Lamiaceae) (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, entire), and CDPR has completed several actions to minimize the threat of trampling to the subspecies (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, pp. 25-26). CDPR reduced the likelihood of visitation to the area (by both humans and horses) by removing references to Hidden Lake from trails, maps, and signs in the Park, and physically obscuring trails to the lake (72 FR 54377, September 25, 2007; see also Fraga and Kietzer 2009, p. 16). Additionally, CDPR installed a wooden barrier fence at historical access points to exclude equestrian use (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, p. 16). CDPR also designated Hidden Lake and its associated watershed area as a Natural Preserve as part of their 2002 general plan revision (CDPR 2002, pp. 62-63), as discussed under Factor D, above. Although a low number of hikers currently access the Hidden Lake area despite efforts to exclude visitors from the area, impacts from trampling appear to have been minimized (Fraga and Wall 2010, p. 5; Kietzer 2011a, pp. 4-5). Furthermore, there is no evidence that horses have had access to the area around Hidden Lake since the exclusionary fences were installed in 2000 (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, p. 13; Fraga and Wall 2010, p. 5).

    We expect that most of these measures to benefit Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum will remain in place for at least the next few decades while the 2002 general plan is active. Further, we expect future general plans to continue to prevent impacts to T. a. ssp. compactum because, compared to the time of listing, CDPR has taken measures to minimize future impacts of certain recreational uses of Hidden Lake that are incompatible with the conservation of the subspecies. This is illustrated by CDPR's formal designation of the Preserve. Thus, trampling of T. a. ssp. compactum by hikers and horses has largely been eliminated, and there is little likelihood that trampling will be a threat to the subspecies in the future.

    Low Numbers of Individuals

    In the final listing rule (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998), we described the vulnerabilities associated with low numbers, stating that the limited numbers and extremely localized range of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum make this taxon more susceptible to single disturbance events such as trampling during the flowering season or alteration of the local water table from soil compression. However, the 1998 final rule did not provide details explaining why we concluded that the subspecies was more susceptible to disturbance. We provide additional explanation in our 2013 5-year review (Service 2013, p. 12), in which we note that conservation biology literature (such as Shaffer 1981, pp. 131-134; 1987, pp. 69-86; Primack 1998, pp. 301-308; Leppig and White 2006, pp. 264-274) commonly notes the increased vulnerability of taxa known from only one or very few locations and when only small populations exist. We then explained that the threat associated with low numbers of individuals was based on the concern that in years when there were fewer than 100 individual plants, very little seed was produced, resulting in a species that may not be self-sustaining.

    Based on new information since the time of listing, we now know that it is likely that Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum is able to survive years with poor conditions and very few flowering plants because of the existing, naturally occurring, onsite seed bank in the soil (Bauder 1999, p. 37). The majority of seeds of T. a. ssp. compactum produced each year are likely deposited in the soils of the basin of Hidden Lake because there are no known means of seed dispersal. We have also found through germination experiments that only a small percentage of seeds germinate, even when conditions are appropriate (Bauder 1999, p. 28; Fraga and Wall 2009, p. 5). This suggests that some proportion of T. a. ssp. compactum seeds likely remain dormant in the soil and survive through years lacking adequate environmental conditions for plants to reach maturity and reproduce. In the PDM plan, we recommend monitoring reproductive success of the taxon, because it may be cause for concern if the reproductive potential decreases. Data collected since 1980 on this taxon show that the standing population size fluctuates from fewer than 100 to greater than 10,000 plants, but the presence of a persistent soil seed bank demonstrates resiliency and has allowed the subspecies to remain viable. The differences in standing population size of T. a. ssp. compactum, especially absent evidence of trampling, may still be best characterized as natural variation or fluctuation tied to the annual water level of Hidden Lake (Bauder and McMillan 1998, pp. 63-66; Bauder 1999, pp. 13-17). In this manner, we conclude that the low numbers of individuals in some years is a temporary phenomenon and does not pose a long-term threat to this plant. Nevertheless, an ex situ seed bank (an offsite, artificial collection of seeds held in special climate-controlled conditions for long-term storage) has been established and is discussed further in the PDM plan.

    As noted in the 2013 5-year review (Service 2013, pp. 12-13), species known from only one or a few populations, or that exist in populations with low numbers of individuals, are more vulnerable to stochastic (random) events. For example, a fire, flood, or drought is likely to be more devastating to a small, localized population than to a large, widespread population. Though increased vulnerability to stochastic events has not been documented for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum in the past, nor were specific concerns discussed in detail in the final listing rule (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998), fire could affect the area in the future. A fire burned near Hidden Lake in 2013 (Mountain Fire). Though there were no impacts to T. a. ssp. compactum, a large fire could potentially affect the lake, and subsequently T. a. ssp. compactum, through increased sedimentation or changes to the hydrology.

    While it is possible that stochastic events could impact Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum in the future, we conclude that this threat alone is not significant enough to cause long-term population declines because the natural persistent seed bank in the soil would likely survive such events, including fire. RSABG collected T. a. ssp. compactum seeds over 3 years (2006, 2008, and 2009) and is maintaining an ex situ (offsite) conservation seed bank. As indicated in the PDM plan, additional research is needed to estimate the size of the seed bank, as well as additional collections during years of high and low abundance. Maintenance of this seed bank provides insurance against the subspecies going extinct if the natural occurrence were extirpated due to an adverse stochastic event or other circumstances (such as disease or prolonged drought).

    Climate Change

    Here, we consider observed or likely environmental changes resulting from ongoing and projected changes in climate. The 1998 listing rule did not discuss the potential impacts of climate change on Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum or its habitat (63 FR 49006, September 14, 1998). As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the term “climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2013a, p. 1,450). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or the variability of relevant properties, which persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, due to natural conditions (e.g., solar cycles) or human-caused changes in the composition of atmosphere or in land use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1,450).

    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60 years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4). The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 2013, p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of extinction pressures, such as land use and invasive species, which will likely place extinction rates in this era among just a handful of the severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's geological record (AAAS 2014, p. 17).

    Examples of various other observed and projected changes in climate and associated effects and risks, and the bases for them, are provided for global and regional scales in reports issued by the IPCC (2013c, 2014), and similar types of information for the United States and regions within it can be found in the National Climate Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire).

    Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate and is “extremely likely” (defined by the IPCC as 95 to 100 percent likelihood) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2013b, p. 17 and related citations).

    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in temperature and other climate conditions. Model results yield very similar projections of average global warming until about 2030, and thereafter the magnitude and rate of warming vary through the end of the century depending on the assumptions about population levels, emissions of GHGs, and other factors that influence climate change. Thus, absent extremely rapid stabilization of GHGs at a global level, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change will be influenced substantially by human actions regarding GHG emissions (IPCC 2013b, 2014; entire).

    Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the only or the best scientific information available for us to use. However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g., IPCC 2013c, 2014; entire) and within the United States (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). Therefore, we use “downscaled” projections when they are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a discussion of downscaling).

    Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables like habitat fragmentation (for examples, see Franco et al. 2006; Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011; Bertelsmeier et al. 2013, entire). In addition to considering individual species, scientists are evaluating potential climate change-related impacts to, and responses of, ecological systems, habitat conditions, and groups of species (e.g., Deutsch et al. 2008; Berg et al. 2010; Euskirchen et al. 2009; McKechnie and Wolf 2010; Sinervo et al. 2010; Beaumont et al. 2011; McKelvey et al. 2011; Rogers and Schindler 2011; Bellard et al. 2012).

    Regional temperature observations are often used as an indicator of how climate is changing. The Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) has defined 11 climate regions for evaluating various climate trends in California (Abatzoglou et al. 2009, p. 1535). The relevant WRCC climate region for the distribution of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum within the San Jacinto Mountains is the Southern Interior Region.

    Two indicators of temperature, the increase in mean temperature and the increase in maximum temperature, are important for evaluating trends in climate change in California. For the Southern Interior climate region, linear trends (evaluated over a 100-year time period) indicate an increase in mean temperatures (January through December) of approximately 1.71± 0.47 °F per 100 years (0.95 ± 0.26 °C per 100 years) since 1895, and 3.11± 1.16 °F per 100 years (1.73 ± 0.64 °C per 100 years) since 1949 (WRCC 2016). Similarly, the maximum temperature 100-year trend for the Southern Interior Region shows an increase of about 1.48 ± 0.57 °F per 100 years (0.82 ± 0.32 °C per 100 years) since 1895, and 2.54 ± 1.38 °F per 100 years (1.41 ± 0.77 °C per 100 years) since 1949 (WRCC 2016). It is logical to assume the rate of temperature increase for this region is higher for the second time period (i.e., since 1949) than for the first time period (i.e., since 1895) due to the increased use of fossil fuels in the 20th century.

    Climate models provide climate projections into the future, which help inform our evaluations of potential future impacts, but these projections become more uncertain with increasingly large timeframes. Pierce et al. (2013, entire) presented both Statewide and regional probabilistic estimates of temperature and precipitation changes for California (by the 2060s) using downscaled data from 16 global circulation models and 3 nested regional climate models. The study looked at a historical (1985-1994) and a future (2060-2069) time period using the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios A2 (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 841), which is an IPCC-defined scenario used for the IPCC's Third and Fourth Assessment reports, and is based on a global population growth scenario and economic conditions that result in a relatively high level of atmospheric GHGs by 2100 (IPCC 2007, pp. 44-45; see Stocker et al. 2013, pp. 60-68, and Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 25-28, for discussions and comparisons of the prior and current IPCC approaches and outcomes). Importantly, the projections by Pierce et al. (2013, pp. 852-853) include daily distributions and natural internal climate variability.

    Simulations using these downscaling methods project an increase in yearly temperature for the Southern California Mountains region ranging from 3.78 °F to 5.22 °F (2.1 °C to 2.9 °C) by the 2060s time period, compared to 1985-1994 (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 844). Averaging across all models and downscaling techniques, the simulations project a yearly averaged warming of 4.32 °F (2.4 °C) by the 2060s (Pierce et al. 2013, p. 842).

    While we do not have information to suggest warmer temperatures will directly impact Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum, there can be indirect effects. For example, Williams et al. (2015, p. 6826) found, “anthropogenic warming has intensified the recent drought [in California] as part of a chronic drying trend that is becoming increasingly detectable,” but they also noted that it was, “small relative to the range of natural climate variability.” Shukla et al. (2015, p. 4392) also found that temperature was an important factor in exacerbating drought conditions in California in 2014, although they noted that the low level of precipitation was the primary driver. Thus, the anticipated increasing temperatures (driven by global climate change) are likely to contribute to increased severity of droughts when they occur. However, because the natural climate of California is so variable, it is not clear whether increased drought severity will have substantial impact on T. a. ssp. compactum, which can take advantage of wetter years, when they occur, to replenish its natural seed bank.

    Higher temperatures can also be expected to result in increased evaporation, which suggests that Hidden Lake will likely dry more quickly over a season. However, the effects of increased evaporation to habitat occupied by Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum or to the plant's life history are uncertain. For example, faster evaporation of Hidden Lake might provide an increased growing season (more time at the beginning) because more habitat may be available earlier in the season (the plant primarily grows in the dry portions of the lakebed), or it could result in a shorter growing season (less time at the end) because the area dries out too much and the plants may desiccate before producing seed, or the two processes could happen together and produce a shift in the growing season (same overall amount of growth time, just starting earlier in the year). Observed increases in temperature over the past 100 years do not appear to have currently adversely affected the subspecies. Based on the best available regional data, current and future trends do not lead us to conclude that change in ambient temperature is currently a threat to T. a. ssp. compactum or likely to become one in the future.

    Precipitation patterns can also be used as an indicator of how climate is changing. We obtained yearly precipitation data for the Idyllwild region of the San Jacinto Mountains from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/). We then conducted a nonparametric correlation test, the Mann-Kendall statistical test (Hipel and McLeod 1994, pp. 63-64, 856-858), to evaluate trends in precipitation over time. This analysis was conducted using the R and R Studio software programs (R Development Core Team 2014) with the “Kendall” package, version 2.2 (McLeod 2011). We found no significant trend in precipitation over time (increasing or decreasing) from 1944-2015 (Grizzle 2016, pers. comm.). There is no information currently available that would lead us to conclude that potential changes in the amount of precipitation are a threat now or likely to be in the future. However, changes in the timing and type (rain or snow) of precipitation could alter the unique environment of Hidden Lake and potentially impact habitat where this taxon occurs in the future. To address this concern, we have included monitoring in the PDM plan (see Post-Delisting Monitoring, below) to provide baseline data on climatic conditions as well as the duration and depth of ponding that occurs at Hidden Lake. Additionally, the maintenance of the ex situ seed bank provides some flexibility to respond to stochastic events including those associated with a changing climate.

    Summary of Factor E

    Management actions implemented at Hidden Lake by CDPR in recent years have reduced the threat of trampling to a minimal level. At the time of listing, we were concerned that low numbers of individuals in some years threatened the existence of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. Since listing, data suggest this subspecies has a soil seed bank and germination mechanisms that have allowed the taxon to remain viable over time, even in years when very few plants flower and set seed. Low numbers of individuals in certain years followed by years with high numbers of individuals suggests this is a natural phenomenon for this taxon. Though stochastic events, such as wildfire, could affect the subspecies in the future, the soil seedbank will likely be maintained, facilitating future growth. Climate change was also identified as a potential threat since listing, but we do not consider it to be a substantial threat at this time, and ongoing management and monitoring is designed to detect future changes.

    Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1296), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by March 6, 2017. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. Another comment period was opened on November 1, 2017, for 30 days in order to publish a legal notice and to give all interested parties further opportunity to comment on the proposed rule to delist Trichostema austromontanum subsp. compactum (82 FR 50606). Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in The Desert Sun.

    During the comment periods for the proposed rule, we received a total of 17 comment letters or statements directly addressing the proposed action. These included 4 comments from peer reviewers and 13 comments during open comment periods (1 from the State and 12 from the general public) that are posted on Federal docket no. FWS-R8-ES-2016-0127. Three of the public comments (including comments from the State) supported the proposed action to delist Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. A fourth commenter provided no relevant information related to T. a. ssp. compactum. The remaining nine public commenters objected to the action to delist the subspecies; however, of these, only one provided substantive information regarding the proposed delisting rule.

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum and its habitat, biological needs, and threats, as well as familiarity with conservation biology, plant systematics, rare species, and plant phylogeography. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers. The reviewers generally supported the proposed delisting rule and commented that the current status of T. a. ssp. compactum is accurately presented.

    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the public for substantive issues and new information regarding the delisting of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. Substantive comments received during the comment period are addressed below and, where appropriate, incorporated directly into this final rule and the post-delisting monitoring plan.

    Comments From Peer Reviewers

    Comment (1): Multiple reviewers commented on the natural seed bank. One peer reviewer expressed concern with the density of the seed bank and said it would be useful to know more about the mean seed set in order to be better able to predict size of the seed bank and stability of the population. Another peer reviewer recommended identifying specific targets for number of plants/seeds stored and stated that different genotypes may be represented in different years, so ex situ collections should target multiple years including those with large and small numbers of plants.

    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestions from peer reviewers and identified additional research that is needed to inform implementation of the PDM plan.

    Comment (2): One peer reviewer asked whether the proposed 13-year monitoring will result in the appropriate data to assess if the species remains recovered and whether monitoring every 3 years provides enough information to assess trends. They recommended monitoring more regularly, perhaps in paired years.

    Our Response: Though more regular surveys will likely occur (State Parks and RSABG have conducted annual surveys for the past several years), this PDM plan describes at a minimum the 5 years of post-delisting monitoring that will occur following removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. These 5 years of monitoring have been expanded over a 13-year period to enable us to look for and detect changes in the population following delisting. The PDM plan further indicates that at the end of each survey year and at the end of the planned 13-year monitoring period, PDM data will be assessed to determine whether the survey protocols are functioning as anticipated and whether any changes in species protection are needed. If monitoring indicates that the species may be less secure than anticipated, the duration of the PDM period may be extended. Additional parameters or increased monitoring frequency could also be considered to increase the probability of detecting any future declines.

    Comment (3): Peer reviewers made several additional recommendations for the final PDM plan, including: (1) Clarifying the trigger for re-listing and how it will be confirmed from monitoring; (2) monitoring of visitation rates to Hidden Lake bluecurls; (3) monitoring potential dispersal rates of nonnative plant species; (4) clarifying triggers for how the ex-situ seed bank would be used should it be needed, and how seeds would be used for reintroduction; and (5) clarifying genetic diversity, seed viability, and seed collection standards for seeds stored in the ex-situ seed bank.

    Our Response: We appreciate the suggestions from the peer reviewers, and have adjusted the PDM plan to incorporate these recommendations.

    Comment (4): One peer reviewer indicated that they have concerns regarding the sampling approach between the two methods described in the PDM plan. The reviewer indicated that an entire population census approach would be best to monitor population trends for this annual plant rather than restricted random sampling in years when large numbers of plants occur.

    Our Response: We appreciate the information from peer reviewers. Annual surveys were conducted using this refined monitoring plan for the past 5 years. We will continue to work with our partners to evaluate methods for detecting trends.

    Comment (5): One peer reviewer suggested that it is premature to suggest that Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum is not commonly pollinated by insects.

    Our Response: We have made revisions to the final rule to reflect that additional research is needed to investigate the importance of pollinators for reproduction and seed set of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum.

    Comment (6): One peer reviewer thought that we had underestimated the potential threat from wildfire, given recent drought and resulting increases in dead or stressed trees in the San Jacinto Mountains and a fire in close proximity to Hidden Lake in 2013. The reviewer noted that, despite the species' long-lived seed bank, a wildfire could result in altered hydrology and increased sedimentation into Hidden Lake.

    Our Response: We have added a short discussion of fire and stochastic events to the discussion of threats above. While we acknowledge that there is a chance that fire could impact the species, the natural and ex situ seed banks provide the ability to respond to this type of stochastic event, should it occur.

    Public Comments

    Comment (7): One public commenter recommended that post-delisting monitoring should be extended to a minimum of 25 years in order to monitor ongoing changes in climate and that status reviews be completed every 5 years and made publicly available.

    Our Response: Section 4(g) of the Act states that the Secretary shall implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor effectively for not less than 5 years the status of all species that have recovered to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. As discussed above, the PDM plan for Trichostema austromontanum subsp. compactum expands the required 5-year period to 13 years. More regular surveys will likely occur as State Parks and RSABG have conducted annual surveys for the past several years. Furthermore, the PDM plan indicates that at the end of the 13-year monitoring period the PDM data will be assessed to determine whether the data collection protocols are functioning as anticipated and whether changes in species protection are needed. We have determined that this timeframe is sufficient, and if monitoring indicates that the species may be less secure than anticipated, the duration of the PDM period may be extended.

    Comment (8): One public commenter stated that the PDM plan needs triggers for action if downward trends or impacts are reported from monitoring efforts.

    Our Response: If data produced as part of or in conjunction with this PDM plan suggest that Trichostema austromontanum subsp. compactum are in decline or habitat destruction at Hidden Lake reaches a magnitude such that the species is likely to become endangered, it would trigger potential commencement of re-listing procedures. The justifications for four potential outcomes are described in the PDM plan. These actions are based on the status of trends and current impacts to the species and lay out the steps needed to determine if additional protections are needed.

    Comment (9): One public commenter stated that the main threat to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum is trampling by hikers. The commenter suggested that the Service and the Department of the Interior restrict access from known populations and that research be conducted to identify where plants occur so that trails could be rerouted to avoid them.

    Our Response: The entire distribution where Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum occurs is owned by the State of California and managed by CDPR. As discussed above, CDPR has conducted surveys for this subspecies for the past several years and protections enacted in association with the Preserve and Wilderness designation are anticipated to remain should this subspecies be delisted. They are working to minimize impacts to T. a. ssp. compactum through construction of a new trail (Hidden Divide Trail), which will minimize unauthorized access and enable access only through a permit system. The trail will provide viewing areas and interpretive signs to educate visitors about the unique ecosystem, and fencing has been installed to restrict physical access.

    Determination Standard for Review

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a “threatened species” as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species” because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The same factors apply whether we are analyzing the species' status throughout all of its range or throughout a significant portion of its range.

    On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578). Aspects of that policy were vacated for species that occur in Arizona by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. CBD v. Jewell, No. CV-14-02506-TUC-RM (Mar. 29, 2017), clarified by the court, Mar. 29, 2017. Since Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum does not occur in Arizona, for this finding we rely on the SPR Policy, and also provide additional explanation and support for our interpretation of the SPR phrase. In our policy, we interpret the phrase “significant portion of its range” in the Act's definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species” to provide an independent basis for listing a species in its entirety; thus there are two situations (or factual bases) under which a species would qualify for listing: A species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range; or a species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If a species is in danger of extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, is an “endangered species.” The same analysis applies to “threatened species.”

    Our final policy addresses the consequences of finding a species is in danger of extinction in an SPR, and what would constitute an SPR. The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a valid distinct population segment (DPS), we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.

    The SPR policy applies to analyses for all status determinations, including listing, delisting, and reclassification determinations. As described in the first element of our policy, once the Service determines that a “species”—which can include a species, subspecies, or DPS—meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” the species must be listed in its entirety and the Act's protections applied consistently to all individuals of the species wherever found (subject to modification of protections through special rules under sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).

    For the second element, the policy sets out the procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR; the procedure is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our assessment of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. We subsequently examine whether, in light of the species' status throughout all of its range, it is necessary to determine its status throughout a significant portion of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and no SPR analysis is required. The policy explains in detail the bases for this conclusion—including that this process ensures that the SPR language provides an independent basis for listing; maximizes the flexibility of the Service to provide protections for the species; and eliminates the potential confusion if a species could meet the definitions of both “endangered species” and “threatened species” based on its statuses throughout its range and in a significant portion of its range. See, e.g., SPR Policy, 79 FR 37580-81, July 1, 2014.

    Hidden Lake Bluecurls Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range

    No threats attributable to Factors A, B, or C were identified at the time Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum was listed in 1998. Threats identified at the time of listing included impacts associated with human and horse trampling (Factor E), the limited numbers and an extremely localized range of T. a. ssp. compactum (Factor E), and the limited protections afforded by the CDPR to reduce or eliminate those threats (Factor D). Since listing, conditions associated with climate change (Factor E) have been identified as a potential rangewide threat to the subspecies.

    We now have sufficient data to show that management enacted by CDPR to benefit Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum and its habitat at Hidden Lake has been effective and will continue to be in the foreseeable future. CDPR, as the operative land manager, has demonstrated a long-term commitment to provide for the conservation of T. a. ssp. compactum. Their staff, in cooperation with RSABG staff, finalized the Conservation Strategy for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum (Hidden Lake bluecurls; Lamiaceae) (Fraga and Kietzer 2009, entire), which outlined immediate conservation actions, goals, and conservation measures for the recovery and long-term management of the subspecies. In subsequent years, both entities have continued to monitor the area and have developed an improved survey methodology for T. a. ssp. compactum. Because T. a. ssp. compactum is entirely within Mount San Jacinto State Park, is within the Mount San Jacinto State Wilderness Area, and is within the recently established Preserve, CDPR is able to manage Hidden Lake specifically for the conservation of T. a. ssp. compactum and its habitat, along with other sensitive resources found in the area.

    Trampling by humans has been minimized, and no visible impacts to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum have been observed from trampling by horses since 2000 because of CDPR's management. CDPR indicated that the Hidden Divide Trail will be a pedestrian trail and equestrian use will not be authorized. Therefore, we no longer consider T. a. ssp. compactum to be threatened by trampling. The low numbers of standing plants in some years appears to be a natural phenomenon for this subspecies. The species' soil seed bank provides resiliency that allows the species to remain viable through years with poor conditions, and, therefore, low numbers in some years is not considered a threat at this time. The ex situ seed banking program at RSABG also provides insurance for this subspecies by assuring propagation potential should future stochastic events or climate change adversely impact the endemic population. Actions taken by CDPR and RSABG have reduced the threats associated with trampling, small population size, and stochastic events to a manageable level.

    Since listing, we have become aware of the potential for anthropogenic climate change to affect all biota, including Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. While available information indicates that temperatures are increasing, there is no clear signal as to the potential impacts to T. a. ssp. compactum at this time. Additionally, the lack of a significant declining trend in the amount of precipitation suggests that there is no immediate cause for concern, but potential impacts to T. a. ssp. compactum from changes in the timing and type of precipitation should be monitored in the future.

    Ongoing management by CDPR and protections provided by designation as a State Wilderness Area as well as designation as the Hidden Lake Divide Natural Preserve work to protect this area from development or other habitat disturbance. Management by State Parks has successfully ameliorated threats to the species and the species' adaptations, including the soil seedbank, provide sufficient resilience to withstand its variable environment. Having considered the individual and cumulative impact of threats on this subspecies, we find that Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

    Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Consistent with our interpretation that there are two independent bases for listing species as described above, after examining the status of Hidden Lake bluecurls throughout all of its range, we now examine whether it is necessary to determine its status throughout a significant portion of its range. Per our final SPR policy, we must give operational effect to both the “throughout all” of its range language and the SPR phrase in the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” We have concluded that to give operational effect to both the “throughout all” language and the SPR phrase, the Service should conduct an SPR analysis if (and only if) a species does not warrant listing according to the “throughout all” language.

    If the species is neither endangered nor threatened throughout all of its range, we determine whether the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range. To undertake this analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be significant or in analyzing portions of the range in which there is no reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that there are any portions of the species' range: (1) That may be “significant” and (2) where the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more-detailed analysis of the issue is required.

    In practice, one key part of identifying portions for further analysis may be whether the threats or effects of threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If a species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range and the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, then the species is not likely to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any portion of its range and no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only to portions of the species' range that are not “significant,” such portions will not warrant further consideration.

    We evaluate the significance of the portion of the range based on its biological contribution to the conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold for “significant” in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction for the species. We conclude in our policy that such a biologically based definition of “significant” best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation. We determine if a portion's biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as “significant” by asking whether, without that portion, the status of the species would be so impaired that the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., would be an “endangered species” or a “threatened species”). Conversely, we would not consider the portion of the range at issue to be “significant” if there is sufficient viability elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout its range even if the population in that portion of the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).

    If we identify any portions (1) that may be significant and (2) where the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, we engage in a more-detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that identified SPR. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the SPR. To make that determination, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

    If we have identified portions of the species' range for further analysis, we conduct a detailed analysis of the significance of the portion and the status of the species in that portion. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address the significance question first or the status question first. If we address significance first and determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future there; if we address the status of the species in portions of its range first and determine that the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”

    Applying the process described above, to identify whether any portions warrant further consideration for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) particular portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

    First, we will consider whether there is substantial information to indicate that Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum faces any threats or effects of threats that are geographically concentrated in any portion of the subspecies' range.

    Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum is a narrow endemic plant subspecies, found only in and around Hidden Lake in Mount San Jacinto State Park. Its entire range is about 2 ac (1 ha) in size. It is an annual plant, which means it completes its life cycle in less than 1 year. As previously noted, it has a natural seed bank in the soil, with seeds that persist for extended periods of time. Although the number and distribution of standing (growing) plants varies from year to year, the distribution of the seeds in soil is likely fairly ubiquitous within the area occupied by the subspecies. Within this 2-ac (1-ha) area, there is no natural division that would arbitrarily separate one portion of the range from another. Because of the limited geographic area the subspecies occupies, the entire subspecies experiences similar conditions and management by CDPR such that no portion of the subspecies' range is likely to experience a different or elevated level of threats.

    We conclude that there are no portions of the subspecies' range that are likely to be both significant and be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, no portion warrants further consideration to determine whether the subspecies is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in a significant portion of its range.

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. Because the species is neither in danger of extinction now nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or any significant portion of its range, the species does not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. Therefore, we find that T. a. ssp. compactum no longer requires the protection of the Act, and we are removing the subspecies from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

    Effects of This Rule

    The Act sets forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered plants. The Act's implementing regulations extend most of the prohibitions provided under section 9(a)(2) of the Act to threatened plants (see 50 CFR 17.61 and 17.71). It is illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Act requires that Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the subspecies' continued existence. This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12 to remove T. a. ssp. compactum from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, and these prohibitions no longer apply. Because critical habitat has not been designated for this taxon, this rule does not affect 50 CFR 17.96.

    Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a system to monitor effectively, for not less than 5 years, all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring is to verify that a species remains secure from risk of extinction after it has been removed from the protections of the Act. The monitoring is designed to detect the failure of any delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires us to cooperate with the States in development and implementation of post-delisting monitoring programs, but we remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) of the Act and, therefore, must remain actively engaged in all phases of post-delisting monitoring. We also seek active participation of other entities that are expected to assume responsibilities for the species' conservation post-delisting.

    Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Overview

    We prepared a PDM plan for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum. The plan discusses the current status of the taxon and describes the methods proposed for monitoring after the taxon is removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (https://ecos.fws.gov). The PDM plan:

    (1) Summarizes the status of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum at the time the final delisting rule published;

    (2) Describes frequency and duration of monitoring;

    (3) Discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling regimes;

    (4) Defines what potential triggers will be evaluated for additional monitoring;

    (5) Outlines reporting requirements and procedures;

    (6) Indicates what additional research is needed to implement the PDM plan; and

    (7) Proposes a schedule for implementing the PDM plan and defines responsibilities.

    It is our intent to work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered status of Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum.

    Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act

    We determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2016-0127, or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Author

    The primary author of this final rule is the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office in Carlsbad, California, in coordination with the Pacific Southwest Regional Office in Sacramento, California.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

    PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

    § 17.12 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the entry for “Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum” under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Dated: May 1, 2018. James W. Kurth, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11786 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    83 106 Friday, June 1, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0495; Product Identifier 2017-NM-089-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of unreliable performance of the water and fuel scavenge system; failure of the fuel scavenge function can cause trapped fuel, resulting in unavailable fuel reserves. This proposed AD would require incorporating operating limitations, or modifying the water and fuel scavenge systems in the fuel tanks and certain electrical panels. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

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

    You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. Boeing service information is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0495.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0495; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3555; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0495; Product Identifier 2017-NM-089-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received reports of unreliable performance of the water and fuel scavenge system; failure of the fuel scavenge function can cause trapped fuel, resulting in unavailable fuel reserves. During flight, any water in the fuel can sink to the bottom of the fuel tank. This water can enter the fuel scavenge inlets and can then freeze as it travels from the body center fuel tank into the colder fuel scavenge tubes in the left and right cheek center fuel tanks (outboard of the side of body ribs). The flow of scavenge fuel from the center fuel tank to the main fuel tanks can then decrease or stop. When this occurs, as much as 700 pounds of fuel can remain unavailable during flight. If the fuel quantity decreases to the quantity of the unavailable fuel, then fuel exhaustion will occur, which could lead to subsequent power loss of all engines.

    Related Rulemaking

    We issued AD 2002-16-15, Amendment 39-12854 (67 FR 54333, August 22, 2002), applicable to certain Boeing Model 777 series airplanes, that requires modification of the supports for the wire bundles of the fuel quantity indicator system (FQIS), and follow-on actions if necessary. AD 2002-16-15 was issued to prevent chafing of the FQIS wiring on surrounding structures and system, which could result in exposure of the bare conductor in close proximity to structures or other electrically conductive return paths, and potential electrical arcing and explosion in the fuel tank in the event of an additional wiring failure outside the fuel tank. Paragraph (a)(2) of AD 2002-16-15 requires modifying the supports for the FQIS wire bundles in the center fuel tank (including installing spacers on the FQIS wiring support brackets and standoffs, installing a clamp next to the grommet at each tank unit, and replacing the clamp filler O-rings), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0016, dated April 27, 2000.

    This proposed AD would require incorporating operating limitations, or modifying the water and fuel scavenge systems in the fuel tanks and certain electrical panels.

    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, provides instructions to modify the fuel tanks scavenge system. For airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 4 and 7 through 14 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, a minor adjustment to a certain FQIS wire bundle routing to allow the installation of a new fuel scavenge tube would need to be made. Although this minor adjustment is a deviation from the wire routing layout required by paragraph (a)(2) of AD 2002-16-15, the separation of the wire bundles from chafing and rubbing against a new fuel scavenge inlet tube is maintained, which is the safety objective of AD 2002-16-15.

    Because of the difference in the FQIS wire bundle routing required in paragraph (a)(2) of AD 2002-16-15 and routing specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD, we have determined that operators of airplanes identified as Groups 1 through 4 and 7 through 14 in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, would need an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to paragraph (a)(2) of AD 2002-16-15. Therefore, paragraph (j)(5) of this proposed AD specifies that accomplishment of the engine fuel feed system modification specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD is acceptable for compliance with the routing requirements of fuel quantity indicating system wire bundle W8011 in the left side of the body center fuel tank specified in paragraph (a)(2) of AD 2002-16-15.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for changing the water and fuel scavenge systems in the fuel tanks on each side of the airplane. The FQIS wire bundle W8011 adjustment is intended to prevent the wire bundle from rubbing with a new fuel scavenge inlet tube. Additionally, this service information describes procedures for making electrical changes in the main equipment center, including installing additional relays on the P301 and P302 panels, and making wiring changes. Also, this service information describes procedures for installing new electrical load management system 1 (ELMS1) software.

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

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

    For information on the procedures, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0495.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 111 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Incorporation operating limitations 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $9,435
    Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Fuel system modification 207 work-hours × $85 per hour = $17,595 $85,572 $103,167 P110 and P210 panel changes 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 0 170

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0495; Product Identifier 2017-NM-089-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2002-16-15, Amendment 39-12854 (67 FR 54333, August 22, 2002).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of unreliable performance of the water and fuel scavenge system; failure of the fuel scavenge function can cause trapped fuel, resulting in unavailable fuel reserves. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of capability to scavenge fuel in the center fuel tank, which could lead to fuel exhaustion and subsequent power loss of all engines.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision to Operating Limitations

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Revise the operating limitations in the documents specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD to include the text in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) “Fuel System—Loading” section of the “Certificate Limitations” section of the FAA-approved Boeing Model 777 Airplane Flight Manual.

    (2) “Loading Limitations” section of the “Fuel Loading Procedures” section of the “Fuel Management” section of the FAA-approved Boeing Model 777 Weight and Balance Control and Loading Manual.

    EP01JN18.002 (h) Optional Terminating Action

    Modifying the fuel tank fuel and water scavenge systems, modifying the fuel jettison system, making electrical changes in the main equipment center, modifying the wiring in the ELMS P110 and 210 panels, and installing new electrical load management system 1 (ELMS1) software, by doing all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017, is an optional terminating action to the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, dated May 26, 2016.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

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

    (5) For airplanes in Groups 1 through 4, and 7 through 14, as defined in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0082, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2017: Accomplishment of the engine fuel feed system modification specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the routing requirements of fuel quantity indicating system wire bundle W8011 in the left side of the body center fuel tank specified of in paragraph (a)(2) of AD 2002-16-15, provided all provisions of AD 2002-16-15 that are not specifically described in this paragraph remain fully applicable and are complied with accordingly.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3555; email: [email protected]

    (2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 23, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11693 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1105; Product Identifier 2017-SW-023-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 427 helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the inboard skin of the vertical fin around the four tailboom attachment points. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracked vertical fin skins that resulted from metal fatigue. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1105; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the Transport Canada AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2017-03, dated January 31, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for BHTC Model 427 helicopters with vertical fin part number (P/N) 427-035-840-105 or P/N 427-035-840-109 installed. Transport Canada advises of three reports of cracked vertical fin skins that resulted from metal fatigue. If not detected, the crack may grow to a critical length, causing the fin to fail, separate from the helicopter and damage the main or tail rotor blades, leading to their in-flight failure. Loss of the fin may also adversely affect the helicopter's directional stability, leading to loss of directional control, Transport Canada advises.

    Transport Canada consequently requires repetitively inspecting the vertical fins for a crack, and if a crack is detected, replacing the fin before further flight.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 427-15-38, Revision A, dated November 14, 2016, which specifies recurring inspections of the vertical fins every 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) once the vertical fin has accumulated 1,500 hours TIS. This inspection also was incorporated in Chapter 4 of the maintenance manual. This service information also specifies that serial numbers be assigned to vertical fins that do not have a serial number.

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require within 25 hours TIS or before the helicopter has accumulated 1,500 hours TIS, whichever occurs later and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS:

    • Removing and cleaning the vertical fin attachment area.

    • Using a 10X magnifying glass, visually inspecting the inboard skin of the vertical fin around the four tailboom attachment points for a crack and replacing the fin before further flight if there is a crack.

    • Assigning a serial number if the vertical fin does not have a serial number.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 27 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • Performing the visual inspection would require 2.25 work-hours and no parts for a cost of about $191 per helicopter and $5,157 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

    • Replacing the fin would require 4 work-hours, and parts would cost $10,000, for a cost of $10,340 per helicopter.

    • Assigning a serial number to the fin would require 0.5 work-hour for a cost of $43 per helicopter.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Docket No. FAA-2017-1105; Product Identifier 2017-SW-023-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 427 helicopters with a vertical fin part number (P/N) 427-035-840-105 or P/N 427-035-840-109 installed, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack on the vertical fin skin. This condition could lead to structural failure of the fin, separation of the skin from the helicopter, damage to the main or tail rotor blades and loss of helicopter control.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 31, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or before the helicopter has accumulated 1,500 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS:

    (1) Remove the vertical fin and clean the vertical fin attachment area with a soap solution to remove all traces of dirt, stains, exhaust residue, and oil. Rinse the area with water and let dry.

    (i) Using a 10X power magnifying glass, visually inspect the inboard skin of the vertical fin for a crack around the four tailboom attachment points as depicted in Figure 1 of Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 427-15-38, Revision A, dated November 14, 2016. Pay particular attention to the upper aft attachment point.

    (ii) If there is a crack, replace the vertical fin before further flight.

    (2) If the vertical fin does not have a serial number, assign a serial number using the helicopter serial number, and permanently mark the new serial number on the vertical fin data plate. Create a component history card or equivalent record and annotate the serial number.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2017-03, dated January 31, 2017. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5300, Fuselage Structure (General).

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 16, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11445 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1138; Product Identifier 2017-NE-41-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Austro Engine GmbH Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Austro Engine GmbH model E4 engines and for all model E4P engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of considerable wear on the timing chain on these engines. This proposed AD would require replacement of the timing chain and amending certain airplane flight manuals to limit use of windmill restarts. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-2711; internet: www.austroengine.at. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1138; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1138; Product Identifier 2017-NE-41-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2017-0103, dated June 14, 2017 (referred to after this as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Considerable wear of the timing chain has been detected on some engines. This may have been caused by windmilling restarts, which are known to cause high stress to the timing chain.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the timing chain and consequent engine power loss, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Austro Engine included instructions in the engine maintenance manual to periodically inspect the condition of the timing chain and, depending on findings, to replace the timing chain and the chain wheel. The operation manual was updated to allow windmilling restart only as an emergency procedure.

    More recently, Austro Engines published Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) MSB-E4-017/2, providing instructions to replace the timing chain for engines with known windmilling restarts. For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of the timing chain for engines with known windmilling restarts, and requires amendment of the applicable Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1138.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Austro Engine GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. MSB-E4-017/2, dated December 2, 2016. The MSB describes procedures for replacement of the timing chain. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require replacement of the timing chain and amending certain airplane flight manuals to limit use of windmill restarts.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 211 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Amend AFM 1 work hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $17,935 Remove and replace timing chain 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 775 1,455 307,005
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Austro Engine GmbH Engines: Docket No. FAA-2017-1138; Product Identifier 2017-NE-41-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Austro Engine GmbH model E4 engines with serial numbers that have a “-B” or “-C” configuration and to model E4P engines, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8520, Reciprocating Engine Power Section.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of considerable wear on the timing chain on these engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine timing chain. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the engine timing chain, loss of engine thrust control, and reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) Determine whether the engine is a Group 1 or Group 2 engine as follows.

    (i) A Group 1 engine is an engine equipped with a timing chain that was installed on an engine that experienced a windmill restart, or an engine in which it cannot be determined if the engine experienced any windmilling restarts.

    (ii) A Group 2 engine is an engine that is equipped with a timing chain that has not experienced any windmilling restarts.

    (2) For Group 1 engines: Before the affected timing chain exceeds 945 engine flight hours (EFHs) since installation on an engine, or within 110 EFHs after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the timing chain in accordance with the instructions in Technical Details, Paragraph 2, in Austro Engine Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. MSB-E4-017/2, dated December 2, 2016.

    (3) For Group 1 and Group 2 engines: After the effective date of this AD, following each windmill restart of an engine, before the timing chain of that engine exceeds 945 EFHs since first installation on an engine, or within 110 EFHs after that windmilling restart, whichever occurs later, replace the timing chain in accordance with the instructions in Technical Details, Paragraph 2, in Austro Engine MSB No. MSB-E4-017/2, dated December 2, 2016.

    (4) For Group 1 and Group 2 engines: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, amend the applicable Airplane Flight Manual under Emergency Procedures by adding the information in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(4) of this AD to limit the use of a windmilling restart to only an emergency procedure.

    EP01JN18.000 (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7146; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2017-0103, dated June 14, 2017, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-1138.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A-2700 Weiner Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000-2711; internet: www.austroengine.at. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 23, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11378 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0491; Product Identifier 2017-NM-158-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0491; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0491; Product Identifier 2017-NM-158-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0206, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for the Airbus A310 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items are specified in the A310 ALS Part 2. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continuing airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    EASA previously issued AD 2016-0217 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-21-08, Amendment 39-19079 (82 FR 48904, October 23, 2017) (“AD 2017-21-08”)] to require compliance with the maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations defined in Airbus A310 ALS Part 2 Revision 01, Variation 1.1 and Variation 1.2.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations were approved by the EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 02 of the A310 ALS Part 2, compiling all ALS Part 2 changes approved since previous Revision 01.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0217, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 2 Revision 02.

    The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0491.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2017-21-08

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2017-21-08. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2017-21-08.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes airworthiness limitations applicable to the DT-ALIs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0491; Product Identifier 2017-NM-158-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-21-08, Amendment 39-19079 (82 FR 48904, October 23, 2017) (“AD 2017-21-08”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/maintenance checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is at the time specified in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 2, “Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI),” Revision 02, dated August 28, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Terminating Action for AD 2017-21-08

    Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2017-21-08.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0206, dated October 12, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0491.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 21, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11680 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0555; Product Identifier 2010-SW-047-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to revise Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-05-06 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters. AD 2014-05-06 requires repetitive inspections of the flight-control bearings, replacing any loose bearings with airworthy flight-control bearings, and installing bushings and washers. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2014-05-06 but would remove the repetitive inspections. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0555; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2010-0058, dated March 30, 2010, for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135, EC635, and MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters. EASA advises that during an inspection of an MBB-BK117 C-2, “bearings were detected which had not been correctly fixed.” EASA advises that this condition, if not detected and corrected, may cause the affected control lever to shift in the axial direction and contact the helicopter structure, possibly resulting in reduced helicopter control. As some bearings on the EC135 and MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopter are installed with the same procedure, they are equally affected by the possibility of the unsafe condition, EASA advises.

    As a result, we published AD 2014-05-06 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), which requires repetitively inspecting the flight-control bearings, replacing any loose bearings with an airworthy flight-control bearing, and installing bushings and washers.

    Actions Since AD 2014-05-06 Was Issued

    Since we published AD 2014-05-06, EASA issued AD No. 2010-0058R1, dated April 7, 2017, to remove the repetitive inspections required by EASA AD No. 2010-0058. EASA advises that a review of data and feedback from in-service helicopters determined the Airbus Helicopters modification removes the need for repetitive inspections. We have made a similar determination and are issuing this proposed AD to remove the repetitive inspections required by AD 2014-05-06.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Eurocopter issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009, for Model EC135-series helicopters, and ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010, for Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters. This service information specifies a repetitive inspection of the affected bearings and retrofitting bushings on the levers to prevent movement of the bearings.

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

    Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters ASB EC135-67A-019 for Model EC135-series helicopters and ASB MBB-BK117C-2-67A-010 for Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, both Revision 4 and both dated April 3, 2017. This service information removes the repetitive inspections and retains the procedures for retrofitting the bushings on the levers to prevent movement of the bearings. Revision 3 of this service information is attached as an appendix to Revision 4.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    For EC135 helicopters, this proposed AD would require within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modifying the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance units and cyclic shaft by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting in the axial direction.

    For MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, this proposed AD would require within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modifying the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control lever by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    Differences between this AD and the EASA AD are:

    • The EASA AD is applicable to EC 635-series helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would not because these model helicopters have no U.S. type certificate.

    • The EASA AD requires the modification within the next 12 months after April 13, 2010. This proposed AD would require the modification within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 295 Model EC135-series helicopters and 117 Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • For EC135 helicopters, completing the required modification would require about 32 work-hours and parts would cost about $312, for a total cost of $3,032 per helicopter and $894,400 for the U.S. fleet.

    • For MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, completing the required modification would require about 32 work-hours and parts would cost about $396, for a total cost of $3,116 per helicopter and $364,572 for the U.S. fleet.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2013-0555; Product Identifier 2010-SW-047-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) helicopters, certificated in any category:

    (1) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, serial number (S/N) 0005 through 00829, with a tail rotor control lever, part number (P/N) L672M2802205 or L672M1012212; cyclic control lever, P/N L671M1005250; collective control lever assembly, P/N L671M2020108; or collective control plate, P/N L671M5040207; installed, and

    (2) Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, S/N 9004 through 9310, with a tail rotor control lever assembly, P/N B672M1007101 or B672M1807101; tail rotor control lever, P/N B672M1002202 or L672M2802205; or lateral control lever assembly, P/N B670M1008101, installed.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as incorrectly installed flight control bearings. This condition could cause the affected control lever to shift and contact the helicopter structure, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 31, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) For Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters: Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance units and the cyclic shaft by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction as follows:

    (i) Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever of the LH guidance unit as depicted in Detail A of Figure 5 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009 (EC135 ASB).

    (ii) For helicopters without a yaw brake, remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail B of Figure 5 of EC135 ASB.

    (iii) Remove and disassemble the cyclic shaft and install a washer, P/N L671M10055260, between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail C of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.

    (iv) Remove the collective control rod from the bellcrank and install a washer, P/N L221M1042208, on each side of the collective control rod and bellcrank as depicted in Detail D of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.

    (2) For Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters: Within the next 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control lever by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction as follows:

    (i) Remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as depicted in Detail B of Figure 4 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010 (BK117 ASB). Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as depicted in Detail C of Figure 4 of BK117 ASB.

    (ii) Remove the lateral control lever and install new bushings in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C(9)(a) through 3.C(9)(g) of BK117 ASB.

    (iii) Identify the modified lever assembly by writing “MBB BK117C-2-67A-010” on the lever with permanent marking pen and protect with a single layer of lacquer (CM 421 or equivalent).

    (iv) Apply corrosion preventive paste (CM518 or equivalent) on the shank of the screws and install airworthy parts as depicted in Figure 5 of BK117 ASB.

    (f) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (h) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2017, and Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117C-2-67A-010, Revision 4, dated April 3, 2017, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0058R1, dated April 7, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710, Main Rotor Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 11, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11447 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0496; Product Identifier 2018-NM-031-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of metallic debris found in the wing slat piccolo tubes; investigation revealed that the debris originated from the flow guide of the ball joint of the wing anti-ice valve. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for metallic debris and damage of the flow guide of the ball joint of the wing anti-ice valve, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0496; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0496; Product Identifier 2018-NM-031-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0022, dated January 29, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported on Falcon 2000 and Falcon 2000EX aeroplanes, where metallic debris was found in slat piccolo tubes. The technical investigation revealed that debris originated from the flow guide of the ball joint located downstream of the wing anti-ice valve. It was also determined that small debris gathers at the end of the piccolo tube, but larger pieces of debris may stop before, in the distribution piping, restricting the airflow and potentially leading to undetected insufficient wing anti-ice capability.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to undetected significant ice accretion on the wing, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation issued Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-413 for Falcon 2000EX and SB F2000-441 for Falcon 2000, providing applicable instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive [detailed] inspections [for discrepancies including cracks and loss of material] of the affected ball joint and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable related investigative and corrective actions * * *.

    Related investigative actions include, for any loss of material, borescope inspections of anti-ice pipes for debris, nicks, and damage. Corrective actions include replacing any cracked or damaged ball joint, and removing debris from the flow guide. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0496.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Service Bulletins F2000-441, dated June 20, 2017; and F2000EX-413, dated July 10, 2017. This service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for metallic debris and damage of the flow guide of the anti-ice ball joint of the wing. The service information also describes procedures for replacing the ball joint and pipe, and performing borescope inspections of damaged wing anti-ice pipes and removal of any debris from the flow guide. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 348 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 $0 $510 $177,480

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0496; Product Identifier 2018-NM-031-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000 and FALCON 2000EX airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers equipped with any anti-ice pipe having part number (P/N) F2MA724561A1 or P/N F2MA724561A2, except airplanes on which Dassault Modification (mod) M5000 or Dassault mod M5001 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of metallic debris found in the wing slat piccolo tubes; investigation revealed that the debris originated from the flow guide of the ball joint of the wing anti-ice valve. We are issuing this AD to address restricted airflow of the piccolo tubes, leading to insufficient wing anti-ice capability and significant undetected ice accretion on the wing, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Within 25 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the flow guide of the ball joint located downstream of the wing anti-ice valve, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000-441, dated June 20, 2017; or Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-413, dated July 10, 2017; as applicable. Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 months. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information identified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0022, dated January 29, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0496.

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

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 22, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11679 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0494; Product Identifier 2017-NM-182-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-07-26, which applies to all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. AD 2006-07-26 requires a one-time inspection to detect discrepancies (e.g., cracking, loose/sheared fasteners, distortion) of the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2006-07-26, we have received reports of cracking in these same areas on other Model ATR42 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1 Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0494; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0494; Product Identifier 2017-NM-182-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued AD 2006-07-26, Amendment 39-14553 (71 FR 18205, April 11, 2006) (“AD 2006-07-26”) for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. AD 2006-07-26 requires a one-time inspection to detect discrepancies (e.g., cracking, loose/sheared fasteners, distortion) of the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes, and repair if necessary. AD 2006-07-26 resulted from a report of cracking on the upper skin and ribs of the outer wing box on an in-service airplane. We issued AD 2006-07-26 to detect and correct discrepancies of the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2006-07-26 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-07-26, we have received additional reports of cracking on the upper skin and ribs of the outer wing box on other Model ATR42 airplanes.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0244, dated December 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrence was reported of detecting cracks on the wing of one in-service ATR 42 aeroplane in 2004. The cracks were found on the upper feet of ribs and on the upper skin of the wing outer boxes.

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

    To address this potential unsafe condition, ATR issued Service Bulletin (SB) ATR42-57-0064 to provide inspection instructions and DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [French] AD F-2004-191 (EASA approval 2004-12117) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-07-26] to require, for aeroplanes having accumulated more than 4,000 flight cycles (FC), a one-time Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) of outer wing box upper skin and upper rib feet, on the right hand (RH) and left hand (LH) sides, from rib 24 to rib 29. After that [French] AD was issued, based on inspection results (all aeroplanes inspected, no similar case found), it was determined that these cracks were an isolated case.

    More recently, three other cases were reported, indicating that this may not be an isolated case and that cracks could occur in this area of the wings on other ATR 42 aeroplanes. Consequently, ATR published SB ATR42-57-0074 (hereafter referred as `ATR SB' in this [EASA] AD) to provide inspection instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD supersedes DGAC France AD F-2004-191 and requires repetitive DVI of the same wing areas and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.

    This proposed AD would also require, after each inspection, reporting the inspection findings, both positive and negative, to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0494.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, dated October 19, 2017. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes for discrepancies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspection 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per inspection cycle $0 $510 per inspection cycle $18,870 per inspection cycle. Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per inspection cycle 0 $85 $3,145 per inspection cycle.

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-07-26, Amendment 39-14553 (71 FR 18205, April 11, 2006), and adding the following new AD: ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Docket No. FAA-2018-0494; Product Identifier 2017-NM-182-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 16, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2006-07-26, Amendment 39-14553 (71 FR 18205, April 11, 2006) (“AD 2006-07-26”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes, and more recent reports of such cracking on additional Model ATR42 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies (e.g., cracking, loose/sheared fasteners, distortion) of the upper skin and rib feet of the outer wing boxes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Within the initial compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 48 months or 6,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed visual inspection for discrepancies of the left-hand and right-hand wing outer wing box upper skin panels and rib upper feet between rib 24 to rib 29. Do the inspection in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, dated October 19, 2017.

    EP01JN18.001 (h) Corrective Actions

    If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Do the repair within the compliance time specified in the approved repair method.

    (i) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD: Report all findings (both positive and negative) of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, using the information in ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-57-0074, dated October 19, 2017.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Repair Is Not Terminating Action

    Unless the repair instructions specify otherwise, repair of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD is not considered terminating action for the repetitive detailed visual inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

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

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0244, dated December 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0494.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1 Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 23, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11692 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0173; FRL- 9978-90—Region 4] Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; AL; Redesignation of the Etowah County Unclassifiable Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 22, 2018, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Etowah County, Alabama fine particulate matter (PM2.5) unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the “Etowah County Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA now has sufficient data to determine that the Etowah County Area is in attainment of the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the State's request and redesignate the Area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon valid, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the PM2.5 monitor in the Area is in compliance with the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0173 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air quality management through the establishment and implementation of the NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On September 21, 2006, EPA revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), based on a 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter.

    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On October 8, 2009, EPA designated areas across the country as nonattainment, unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/attainment 1 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from these monitors for calendar years 2006-2008. See 74 FR 58688. The monitor in the Etowah County Area had incomplete data for the 2006-2008 timeframe. Therefore, EPA designated Etowah County as unclassifiable for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id.

    1 For the initial PM area designations in 2009 (for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of “unclassifiable/attainment” for areas that had monitors showing attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category “unclassifiable” for areas in which EPA could not determine, based upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby violations. EPA reserves the “attainment” category for when EPA redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.

    As discussed in section III, below, the monitor in the Etowah County Area now has sufficient data to determine that the Etowah County Area is in attainment of the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, on March 22, 2018, Alabama submitted a request for EPA to redesignate Area to attainment for these NAAQS.2

    2 Although Alabama requested redesignation of the Area to “attainment,” EPA is proposing to redesignate the area to “unclassifiable/attainment” because, as noted above, EPA reserves the “attainment” category for when EPA redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.

    II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised “on the basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.” The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the request.

    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).3 In keeping with section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/attainment must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The relevant monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The designated monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period upon which the redesignation request is based.4

    3 While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.

    4See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality Management Division, entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (September 4, 1992).

    III. What is EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the Area?

    In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour concentration values (i.e., design value) over the most recent 3-year period must be less than or equal to 35 µg/m3 at all monitoring sites in the Area over the full 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.18 and Appendix N of Part 50. EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from the monitoring station in the Etowah County Area for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 3-year period from 2014-2016. These data have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in AQS by Alabama, and the monitoring location has not changed during the monitoring period. As summarized in Table 1, the design value for the monitor in the Area for the 2014-2016 period is well below the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Table 1—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Value for the Monitor in the Etowah County Area for 2014-2016 Local site name Monitoring site 2014-2016 design value (μg/m3) Etowah County, AL 01-055-0010 17

    Because the 3-year design value, based on valid, quality-assured data, demonstrates that the Area meets the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards, EPA is proposing to redesignate the Etowah County Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for this NAAQS.

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's March 22, 2018, redesignation request and to redesignate the Etowah County Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of Etowah County from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/attainment does not create any new requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    This action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian County, the action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11835 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 106 Friday, June 1, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Quality Control Integrity and Modernization AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In order to accurately estimate improper payments in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has undertaken significant steps to strengthen its measurement process, the SNAP Quality Control system. Improvements include new training, policy clarifications, procedural improvements, and clarification of existing documentation requirements necessary to substantiate case findings. FNS has also implemented new policies to improve accountability and eliminate the potential for bias in the reporting system. FNS is considering proposals for a regulatory reform of its SNAP's Quality Control system in order to align the regulations with new policy and procedural requirements. FNS's intent is to achieve three objectives from reforming the Quality Control system: (1) Strengthen the integrity and accountability of the Quality Control system, (2) increase transparency in the process, and (3) use technology to improve improper payment estimates. Thus, FNS is issuing this Request for Information in order to obtain State government and other stakeholder perspectives as the Agency considers how to best to proceed with reforming the SNAP Quality Control system.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent to Stephanie Proska, Chief, Quality Control Branch, Program Accountability and Administration Division, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 822, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be emailed to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public at www.regulations.gov. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities commenting will be subject to public disclosure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this request for information should be directed to Stephanie Proska at (703) 305-2437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of SNAP's Quality Control system is to measure improper payments consistent with Federal law. In addition to QC requirements in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, SNAP must comply with requirements in The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA) and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA). This legislation requires federal agencies to estimate the annual amount of improper payments. Federal law further directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to establish guidance requiring federal agencies to classify errors. OMB defines error types as: Documentation and administrative errors—errors caused by the absence of supporting documentation necessary to verify the accuracy of a payment; authentication—errors caused by an inability to authenticate eligibility criteria through third-party databases or other resources because no databases or other resources exist; and verification errors—errors caused by the failure or inability to verify recipient information.

    All suggestions received in response to this notice shall be considered in the development of proposed rulemaking, particularly those that articulate how the reform will improve adherence to Federal laws and OMB guidance, as well as contribute to improved accuracy and reduction of bias in the case review or measurement process.

    With these general interests in mind, FNS is seeking information from stakeholders on the following particular questions:

    1. What regulatory changes should FNS consider to further enhance the integrity of the quality control system necessary to ensure the accuracy of improper payment estimates?

    2. In January 2016, FNS published a study evaluating how to enhance SNAP Quality Control completion rates. The study made a number of recommendations regarding how to improve case completion rates. What benefits, implementation challenges, or administrative factors, including cost implications, should FNS consider when evaluating the following recommendations:

    a. Require more contact attempts to reach clients?

    b. Require a greater variety of contact methods to be used?

    c. Revise procedures for scheduling and conducting interviews?

    d. Require client education of the QC process and a client's responsibility to cooperate with QC reviews at the point of application and recertification in order to raise awareness for recipients?

    3. SNAP currently requires field QC investigations to include a personal interview, almost exclusively performed in person. SNAP allows for a State option to conduct phone interviews for QC cases where households receive $100 or less in monthly benefits. SNAP also allows for a State option to conduct video conferences in lieu of an in person interview. What factors should FNS consider and what are the cost implications of allowing for an expanded use of telephone or video interviews in lieu of in-person interviews? What measures should a SNAP State agency take to ensure the accuracy of the case and thoroughness of verifications if telephone interviews were allowed for all QC case reviews?

    4. What electronic databases do State quality control reviewers currently have access to in order to verify information? Do you recommend FNS consider expanding Federal and State reviewer access to electronic databases and, if so, what factors or challenges would you anticipate?

    5. Should FNS consider revising staffing standards, per 7 CFR 275.2(b), to ensure there are a sufficient number of State quality control reviewers staffed in order to complete cases within prescribed time periods?

    6. Federal regulations at 7 CFR 275.23(b)(iii) require FNS to adjust a State agency's regressed error rate for failing to complete 98 percent of its required sample size. FNS is considering a proposal to increase the adjustment as the current formula may not effectively deter mitigation strategies that encourage error prone cases to be dropped. What factors should FNS consider in adjusting a State agency's regressed error rate for incomplete cases?

    7. In both OIG's review of SNAP's QC system and FNS' own QC integrity reviews it was found that one tactic used to minimize the reporting of errors was to drop cases that were subject to QC review. What policies or procedures should FNS consider to ensure that only cases that cannot be verified are dropped while also discouraging the over-use of dropping cases?

    8. FNS uses a two-step process in order to determine a case's final payment error amount, referred to as Comparison I and Comparison II. In an audit, USDA's Office of Inspector General expressed concerns that the existing two-step process does not conform to regulatory requirements and that it does not accurately measure errors because Comparison II is not applied to all cases. This inconsistency raises concerns of underreporting payment errors. What recommendations should FNS consider in revising the use of Comparison I and Comparison II to reflect a more accurate account of a sampled case's payment error amount?

    9. FNS is interested in recommendations that incentivize quality control reviewers to accurately report case results. Performance requirements that focus exclusively on timeliness of the case reviews without any qualitative measure may inadvertently lead to inaccurate case results. What factors should FNS consider in establishing qualitative metrics for quality control case reviews?

    10. What concerns or barriers, if any, would exist if FNS were to mandate the use of the SNAP Quality Control System (SNAPQCS) as a means of reporting case results and documentation to FNS for all QC Worksheets? This is based on an assumption that a State would retain the option to maintain its own internal quality control system, provided that case results were reported to SNAPQCS.

    11. Are there any data elements that FNS should consider collecting through the quality control system as part of the FNS form 380-1 in order to better understand SNAP case record information and/or patterns over time or across States? This includes information that would further FNS's knowledge of potential bias in the payment error rates.

    12. Are there additional recommendations FNS should consider to encourage a greater use of technology to enhance the accuracy of case reviews in QC?

    13. FNS is interested in improving the transparency of the QC process. What factors should FNS consider if FNS were to require all State QC procedures be in writing and submitted to FNS as part of an annual state plan?

    14. What factors should FNS consider in revising the current corrective action planning requirement as a result of payment errors, incomplete cases, or negative case actions?

    To get a quick overview of the referenced Financial Reporting Requirements set by OMB, visit https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A136/a136_revised_2013.pdf and http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/micp_docs/Authoritative_Laws_and_Regulations/OMB_Circular_A-123_Appendix_C.pdf. For an overview of the SNAP QC Completion Rate study, visit https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPQCCompletion.pdf and for an overview of USDA's OIG audit of SNAP's Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rates, visit https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf. FNS has verified the website addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11849 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Alabama Advisory Committee To Discuss the Memorandum on Access to Voting in the State of Alabama AGENCY:

    U.S. 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 that the Alabama Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, June 1, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. (Central) for the purpose discussing the Memorandum on Access to Voting in Alabama.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, June 1, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. (Central).

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-256-1027, Conference ID: 7521876.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Barreras, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-256-1027, conference ID: 7521876. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the 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 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or emailed to David Barreras at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Alabama Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=233&aid=17). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion of the Memorandum Next Steps Public Comment Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance that this project will inform the Commission's FY2018 statutory enforcement report on voting rights and is therefore under a very tight timeline.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11741 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory Committee To Discuss the Barriers to Voting Report AGENCY:

    U.S. 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 that the Louisiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, June 1, 2018, at 10:00:00 a.m. Central for a discussion on the Barriers to Voting in Louisiana report.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, June 1, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. Central.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 888-481-2845, Conference ID: 8259781.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Barreras, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-481-2845, Conference ID: 8259781. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the 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 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324 or emailed to David Barreras at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Louisiana Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=251&aid=17). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion of Barriers to Voting Report Next Steps Public Comment Adjournment

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance that this project will inform the Commission's FY2018 statutory enforcement report on voting rights and is therefore under a very tight timeline.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11742 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Wisconsin Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Civil Rights Concerns in the State U.S. 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 that the Wisconsin Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, July 11, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CST for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. CST. Public Call Information: Dial: 888-287-5536, Conference ID: 2600188.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Allen at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-287-5536, conference ID: 2600188. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Wisconsin Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=282). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discuss Civil Rights Concerns and Future Activities in the State Public Comment Adjournment Dated: May 29, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11803 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the South Carolina Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the South Carolina Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Friday, June 15, 2018, for the purpose of beginning work on its project regarding civil rights issues and policing in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 1-888-663-2254, conference ID: 8893520.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton, DFO, at [email protected] or 404-562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organizations they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference call. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Program Unite Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Program Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, South Carolina Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion on Policing Project Open Comment Adjournment Dated: May 29, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11804 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-53-2018] Approval of Subzone Status, AGCO Corporation, Jackson and Round Lake, Minnesota

    On April 5, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of FTZ 119, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 119, on behalf of AGCO Corporation, in Jackson and Round Lake, Minnesota.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (83 FR 15358-15359, April 10, 2018). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 119M was approved on May 29, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 119's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11818 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-35-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 126—Reno, Nevada; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Tesla, Inc. (Lithium-Ion Batteries, Electric Motors, and Stationary Energy Storage Systems); Sparks and McCarran, Nevada

    Tesla, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Sparks and McCarran, Nevada. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 23, 2018.

    Tesla, Inc. already has authority to produce lithium-ion batteries, electric motors, and stationary energy storage systems within Subzone 126D. The current request would add three foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Tesla, Inc. from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Tesla, Inc. would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to lithium-ion batteries, electric motors, and stationary energy storage systems (duty rate ranges from 2.8 to 3.4%). Tesla, Inc. would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include lithium carbonate, silicon composite material, and acrylic copolymer (duty rate ranges from 3.7% to 6.3%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 11, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at [email protected] or 202-482-1378.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11819 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    Background

    Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.

    All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.

    Respondent Selection

    In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Therefore, we encourage all parties interested in commenting on respondent selection to submit their APO applications on the date of publication of the initiation notice, or as soon thereafter as possible. Commerce invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the review.

    In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, Commerce will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of a review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to a review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Opportunity to Request A Review: Not later than the last day of June 2018,1 interested parties may request administrative review of the following orders, findings, or suspended investigations, with anniversary dates in June for the following periods:

    1 Or the next business day, if the deadline falls on a weekend, federal holiday or any other day when the Commerce is closed.

    Period of review Antidumping Duty Proceedings JAPAN: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe (Over 4 1/2 Inches), A-588-850 6/1/17-5/31/18 JAPAN: Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe (Under 4 1/2 Inches),A-588-851 6/1/17-5/31/18 MEXICO: Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire, A-201-843 6/1/17-5/31/18 SPAIN: Chlorinated Isocyanurates, A-469-814 6/1/17-5/31/18 SPAIN: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges, A-469-815 2/8/17-5/31/18 TAIWAN: Helical Spring Lock Washers, A-583-820 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Artist Canvas, A-570-899 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Chlorinated Isocyanurates, A-570-898 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Furfuryl Alcohol, A-570-835 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: High Pressure Steel Cylinders, A-570-977 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, A-570-945 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire, A-570-990 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Polyester Staple Fiber, A-570-905 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Silicon Metal, A-570-806 6/1/17-5/31/18 THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: Tapered Roller Bearings, A-570-601 6/1/17-5/31/18 Countervailing Duty Proceedings THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: High Pressure Steel Cylinders, C-570-978 1/1/17-12/31/17 Suspension Agreements

    None.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.

    Note that, for any party Commerce was unable to locate in prior segments, Commerce will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).

    As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), and Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), Commerce clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders.2

    2See also the Enforcement and Compliance website at http://trade.gov/enforcement/.

    Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.3 Accordingly, the NME entity will not be under review unless Commerce specifically receives a request for, or self-initiates, a review of the NME entity.4 In administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders on merchandise from NME countries where a review of the NME entity has not been initiated, but where an individual exporter for which a review was initiated does not qualify for a separate rate, Commerce will issue a final decision indicating that the company in question is part of the NME entity. However, in that situation, because no review of the NME entity was conducted, the NME entity's entries were not subject to the review and the rate for the NME entity is not subject to change as a result of that review (although the rate for the individual exporter may change as a function of the finding that the exporter is part of the NME entity). Following initiation of an antidumping administrative review when there is no review requested of the NME entity, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries for all exporters not named in the initiation notice, including those that were suspended at the NME entity rate.

    3See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), parties should specify that they are requesting a review of entries from exporters comprising the entity, and to the extent possible, include the names of such exporters in their request.

    All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS website at http://access.trade.gov. 5 Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(l)(i), a copy of each request must be served on the petitioner and each exporter or producer specified in the request.

    5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Commerce will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of June 2018. If Commerce does not receive, by the last day of June 2018, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11814 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No. 180507461-8461-01] RIN 0625-XC039 Revisions and Clarifications to User Fees for Export and Investment Promotion Services/Events AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revised user fees.

    SUMMARY:

    The International Trade Administration (ITA) recently implemented new user fees for its export and investment promotion services/events in light of an independent cost study, which concluded that ITA was not fully covering its costs for providing services under the prior fee structure. Federal agencies are directed by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 to ensure they recoup their costs when providing certain services. ITA is announcing revisions to its export and investment promotion User Fee Schedule, published on July 10, 2017.

    DATES:

    This user fee schedule will be effective on July 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joe Carter, International Trade Administration, Global Markets, Office of Strategic Planning, 1400 Constitution Avenue NW, Rm. 21022, Washington, DC 20230, Phone: (202) 482-2484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 6 of OMB Circular A-25 directs agencies to asses a user fee “when a service (or privilege) provides special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public.” A “user fee” is the amount paid by a recipient of a special benefit beyond those benefits accruing to the general public. A “special benefit” may accrue and a user fee should be imposed when a government service: (a) Enables the beneficiary to obtain more immediate or substantial gains or values than those that accrue to the general public; (b) is performed at the request or for the convenience of the recipient, and is beyond the services regularly received by members of the same industry or group or by the general public; or (c) provides business stability or contributes to public confidence in the business activity of the beneficiary.

    ITA offers export and investment promotion services/events to U.S. businesses that consist of Standardized Fee Services/Events and Non-Standardized Fee Services/Events. For each of these services/events, fees are collected according to the User Fee Schedule that is made available on the http://2016.export.gov/csuserfees/ website and agency publications. The “Standardized Fee Services/Events” listed in the User Fee Schedule are services/events that are performed in the same general manner by all field units. Other “Non-Standardized Fee Services/Events” entail substantive variation of the scope of work with fees based on the estimated level of effort required and all direct costs incurred. ITA is revising the user fees and offerings for both Standardized Fee Services/Events and Non-Standardized Fee Services/Events based on questions and concerns raised by ITA clients and partners since the current fee schedule was published on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31752) that announced updates to the ITA user fee schedule for export and investment promotion services/events. The revised User Fee Schedule below lists the fee for each Standardized and Non-Standardized Fee export and investment promotion service/event. Fees listed in the revised User Fee Schedule are for ITA staff time only and do not include other direct costs (i.e., transportation, venue rental, catering/food, etc.), which will incur an additional user fee to cover the full cost.

    Summary of Revisions

    The following services/events, which were previously considered “Other Customized Services/Events,” have been added to the User Fee Schedule to provide more clarity about ITA service/event offerings (please see the descriptions of these services/events in the section below):

    • Conference: Non-Standardized Fee • Customized Market Research: Non-Standardized Fee • Foreign Buyer Delegation: Non-Standardized Fee • Official Letter: Standardized Fee • Seminar: Non-Standardized Fee • Seminar (Investment Promotion): Non-Standardized Fee • Trade Event: Non-Standardized Fee • Trade Event (Investment Promotion): Non-Standardized Fee • Virtual Fair: Non-Standardized Fee • Virtual Introduction: Standardized Fee

    The following services/events have been renamed:

    • Certified Trade Mission: previously listed as “Certified Trade/Investment Mission” • Contact List: previously listed as “Verified Contact List” • Facilitated Investment Mission: previously listed as “Certified Trade/Investment Mission” • Other Services/Events: previously listed as “Other Customized Services/Events”

    The following services/events have been removed:

    • Investment Promotion—Gold Key Service: this fee was inadvertently listed

    In addition, the following clarifications have been made to the fees previously listed in GM's User Fee Schedule:

    Certified Trade Mission: Converted to a Non-Standardized Fee Service/Event, except for any Gold Key Service or Initial Market Check provided to participants, given substantial variations in the scope of activities performed that were raised to ITA attention by clients and partners.

    Facilitated Investment Mission: When the full package service is not requested, converted to a Non-Standardized Fee Service/Event given substantial variations in the scope of activities often performed that were raised to ITA attention by clients and partners.

    Featured U.S. Exporters: Additional Standardized Fee options have been included to account for standardized variations of the activities performed for this service.

    Gold Key Service: Additional Standardized Fee options have been included to account for standardized variations of the activities performed for this service.

    International Company Profile—Partial: Revised the standardized fees based on revisions to the scope of work for this service and updated information collected on the level of effort required to perform it.

    International Partner Search: Fee corrected to the appropriate level of effort due to a calculation error.

    International Partner Search Plus Virtual Introductions: Fee corrected to the appropriate level of effort due to a calculation error; additional Standardized Fee options have been included to account for standardized variations of the activities performed for this service.

    Single Company/Location Promotion: Converted to a Non-Standardized Fee Service/Event given substantial variations in activities performed that were raised to ITA attention by clients, partners and staff.

    Foreign Companies: A column has been added to the User Fee schedule denoting the fees that will be charged to all foreign companies regardless of their size to provide assistance connecting them to U.S. exporters.

    Description of the Services/Events Listed in the Revised User Fee Schedule

    The services/events included in the revised User Fee Schedule are described below with the revisions italicized for emphasis.

    1. Business Service Provider: A listing of U.S. and foreign business service providers that offer export/investment assistance, such as consultants, lawyers, freight forwarders, etc. The fee is paid for by the business service provider to be listed on ITA websites.

    2. Certified Trade Mission (previously listed as Certified Trade/Investment Mission): Provides a group of U.S. companies or economic development organizations with a market briefing, networking reception, Gold Key Service and/or other services in-country as part of a mission organized by a private sector entity. These missions are different from Department of Commerce Executive-led Missions, which are organized by Industry and Analysis/Trade Promotion Programs.

    3. Conference (not previously listed): Provides export/investment knowledge and/or market intelligence at a conference.

    4. Contact List (previously listed as a Verified Contact List): Provides U.S. companies with a basic contact list of up to five to 10 agents, distributors and partners in a foreign market. The information included in the contact list will have been reviewed and verified for accuracy only and no information will be provided on the level of interest in the client's products/services.

    5. Customized Market Research (not previously listed): Provides U.S. companies with answers to questions specific to the client's products/services in a market; including market structure, trends and size, customary distribution and promotion practices and key competitors and agents, distributors, or strategic partners in the market.

    6. Facilitated Investment Mission (previously listed as Certified Trade/Investment Mission): Provides a group of U.S. economic development organizations with a market briefing, networking reception and matchmaking services in-country.

    7. Featured U.S. Exporter: Provides U.S. companies with an opportunity to enhance their international marketing efforts through improved search engine optimization via .gov link-backs to their company's website. The service entails listing their goods/services overseas on a trusted U.S. government website with a brief description and contact information.

    8. Foreign Buyer Delegation (not previously listed): Support provided to foreign buyer delegates to assist them in identifying and connecting with U.S. exporters at trade shows/events and on trade missions. Typically, this support is covered by the fees paid by trade show/event/mission organizers and/or U.S. company participants. However, in some circumstances fees need to be charged to the foreign buyer delegates to cover the costs incurred by ITA.

    9. Gold Key Service: Provides U.S. companies with matchmaking appointments with up to five interested partners in a foreign market. The full service includes identification and outreach to potential matching firms, sending client's information to identified matching firms, preparing a profile of interested firms, attending the appointments and providing a report with the profile and contact information for interested firms.

    10. Initial Market Check: Provides U.S. firms with an initial assessment of the market potential of their product or service in a targeted market. The service gauges the potential of a specific product or service in a market by gathering feedback from up to five industry participants and provides written recommendations on whether to pursue the target market. The service does not guarantee interest by the contacted industry participants.

    11. International Company Profile—Full Report: Provides U.S. companies and economic development organizations with a comprehensive background report on a specific foreign company, including: general business information, background and product information, key officials, references contacted by ITA, financial data/creditworthiness information, reputational information, a site visit and interviews with principals; information sources consulted in preparing the report; and analysis of information collected.

    12. International Company Profile—Partial Report: Provides U.S. companies and economic development organizations with a general background report on a specific foreign company based on publicly available information; including general business information, background and product information, key officials, financial data/creditworthiness information (only when publicly available) and reputational information; information sources used in preparing the report; and brief analysis of information collected.

    13. International Partner Search: Provides U.S. companies with a list of up to five partners/distributors that have expressed an interest in the client's goods/services. The service includes identification and outreach to potential matching firms, sending client's information to identified matching firms, preparing a profile of interested firms, and providing a report with the profile and contact information for interested firms.

    14. International Partner Search Plus Virtual Introductions: Provides the same as the International Partner Search service listed above, but also includes virtual introductions via conference calls with up to five of the contacts identified. Additional fees apply if more than 5 introductions are arranged with the identified partners.

    15. Official Letter (not previously listed): A letter provided by ITA to help U.S. companies comply with local regulatory requirements that must be followed to conduct business in certain foreign countries (i.e. Colombia, Philippines, and Thailand). The letters can address reciprocity, appropriateness of documents and other issues specific to a foreign market.

    16. Other Services/Events (previously listed as Other Customized Services/Events): Includes all other services/events not listed.

    17. Seminar (not previously listed): Provides U.S. companies and economic development organizations with export/investment knowledge and/or market intelligence from ITA and public/private sector experts via an in-person seminar.

    18. Single Company or Location Promotion: Provides a U.S. firm or locality with a promotional event (such as a technical seminar, press conference, luncheon, dinner, cocktail reception, etc.) to help increase awareness of their locality or existing/new products/services in a specific market, including organizing the event logistics/venue; conducting a targeted direct mail or email campaigns; managing the promotional campaign and event-related logistics; providing logistical and promotional support on-site during the event; and providing a post-event de-briefing to discuss next steps.

    19. Trade Event (not previously listed): Provides services to U.S. companies to connect them with foreign buyers and partners at trade events in order to help U.S. companies navigate the increasingly complex international marketplace. Services may also be provided to foreign companies attending these trade events to connect them with U.S. companies exporting goods and services. The services and fees for these trade events are separate from the International Buyer Program and Trade Fair Certification, which are administered by the ITA Industry and Analysis unit.

    20. Trade Show Representation: Provides U.S. companies and economic development organizations with the ability to increase their marketing exposure at an overseas trade show when they are unable to attend in-person. The service entails conducting pre-trade show promotions via internet/social media/email campaign, representing the client at the overseas trade show, displaying the client's promotional materials at the overseas trade show, and conducting outreach to foreign buyers/distributors in attendance at the trade show.

    21. Virtual Fair (not previously listed): Provides a group of U.S. entities with an opportunity to promote their products/services to potential partners in a foreign market live via a webinar platform.

    22. Virtual Introduction (not previously listed): Provides U.S. companies with a virtual introduction via conference call or email to a foreign buyer/partner that they have pre-identified. The U.S. exporter independently identifies the foreign company and contact information and requests an introduction. The U.S. Government is not allowed to and does not endorse or vouch for specific U.S. companies or their products or services.

    23. Webinar: Provides U.S. firms and economic development organizations with export knowledge and/or market intelligence from experts located around the globe via an online webinar. The webinars are often archived on export.gov.

    24. Website Globalization: Provides U.S. companies with services to enhance the strength of their website for attracting foreign partners/business.

    Revisions to the User Fee Schedule

    The fees for the export and investment promotion services/events listed in the revised User Fee Schedule below were set based on the same methodology as described in the Federal Register Notice published on July 10, 2017 (82 FR 31752). The revisions to the User Fee Schedule are italicized for emphasis.

    1 Other direct costs not included in the service description must be assumed by the client. Types of other direct costs include translation, transportation, use of contractors, venue rental, catering, etc. Please note that any transportation for ITA staff beyond 80 kilometers or more than 2 hours from an ITA office will be charged an additional user fee to cover the cost.

    2 Must qualify as a “small business” under the Small Business Administration's size standards, which vary by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code: https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Fees listed also apply to U.S. Economic Development Organizations (EDO) and Non-profit Educational Institutions that purchase ITA services for their own use. For example, when an EDO requests a Gold Key Service (GKS) to promote itself as a tourist destination, it will be charged the small company fee. If, however, an EDO requests a (GKS) to promote a U.S. company's goods/services, the size of the company will be used to determine the fee.

    3 Must have less than $1B in annual revenue (including affiliates: Parent, child, subsidiaries, divisions, etc.) to qualify.

    4 Fees listed apply to all Foreign Companies regardless of their size.

    5 Full package includes a market briefing, networking event/reception, and Gold Key Service.

    6 Fee to be charged for services/events provided to foreign buyer delegates seeking U.S. suppliers of goods/services.

    Revised User Fee Schedule for Export Promotion Services/Events Service/event Fee for commercial service staff time 1
  • (Does not include other direct costs, when applicable, such as transportation, use of contractors, venue rental, promotional materials, catering, etc.)
  • U.S. small company 2 U.S. medium company 3 U.S. large company All foreign companies 4
    Business Service Provider $150 $250 $350 $350. +$50 per language for translation if needed +$50 per language for translation if needed +$50 per language for translation if needed +$50 per language for translation if needed. +$30 for additional category listing +$50 for additional category listing +$70 for additional category listing +$70 for additional category listing. Annual renewal: $75 Annual renewal: $125 Annual renewal: $175 Annual renewal: $175. Conference $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour $90 per staff hour. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs. Contact List $150 $350 $450 N/A. Customized Market Research $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour N/A. Certified Trade Mission 5 $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour N/A. + $950 per participant if a Gold Key Service is included + $2,300 per participant if a Gold Key Service is included + $3,400 per participant if a Gold Key Service is included + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs Featured U.S. Exporter listing $150
  • ($30 per market)
  • $350
  • ($70 per market)
  • $500
  • ($100 per market)
  • N/A.
    + $50 per language for translation if needed + $50 per language for translation if needed + $50 per language for translation if needed Annual renewal: $75
  • ($15 per market)
  • Annual renewal: $175
  • ($35 per market)
  • Annual renewal: $250
  • ($50 per market)
  • Foreign Buyer Delegation N/A N/A N/A $90 per staff hour6
  • + any direct costs.
  • Gold Key Service
  • (matchmaking appointments)
  • Identify, Arrange & Attend: $950 Identify, Arrange & Attend: $2,300 Identify, Arrange & Attend: $3,400 N/A.
    + $350 for > than 5 appointments or if > than 8 hours is required to attend + $1,000 for > than 5 appointments or if > than 8 hours is required to attend + $1,200 for > than 5 appointments or if > than 8 hours is required to attend Identify & Arrange Appointments: $800 Identify & Arrange Appointments: $1,850 Identify & Arrange Appointments: $2,400 Arrange & Attend Appointments: $125 per appointment Arrange & Attend Appointments: $280 per appointment Arrange & Attend Appointments: $360 per appointment Arrange Appointments: $75 per appointment Arrange Appointments: $175 per appointment Arrange Appointments: $225 per appointment + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs Initial Market Check $350 $900 $1,300 N/A. International Company Profile Full $700 $1,200 $2,000 N/A. International Company Profile Partial $150 $350 $450 N/A. International Partner Search $750 $1,750 $2,250 N/A. International Partner Search Plus Virtual Introductions $900 $2,100 $2,700 N/A. + $30 per introduction beyond 5 + $70 per introduction beyond 5 + $90 per introduction beyond 5 Official Letter Colombia Official Letter: $100 Colombia Official Letter: $200 Colombia Official Letter: $300 Philippines Letter on Reciprocity: $100 Philippines Letter on Reciprocity: $250 Philippines Letter on Reciprocity: $350 Philippines Letter on Appropriateness: $150 Philippines Letter on Appropriateness: $350 Philippines Letter on Appropriateness: $450 Thailand: Letter for Treaty of Amity, Defense, Equipment and Medical Device:
  • Standard: $100
  • Overnight: $125
  • Same Day: $150
  • Thailand: Letter for Treaty of Amity, Defense, Equipment and Medical Device:
  • Standard: $200
  • Overnight: $250
  • Same Day: $275
  • Thailand: Letter for Treaty of Amity, Defense, Equipment and Medical Device:
  • Standard: $300
  • Overnight: $375
  • Same Day: $400
  • Other Letters Specific to a Market: $30 per hour Other Letters Specific to a Market: $70 per hour Other Letters Specific to a Market: $90 per hour Other Services/Events $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour $90 per staff hour. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs. Seminar $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour $90 per staff hour. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs. Single Company Promotion $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour N/A. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs Trade Event $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour $90 per staff hour. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs. Trade Show Representation $400 $950 $1,350 N/A. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs Virtual Introduction $30 per introduction $70 per introduction $90 per introduction N/A. Virtual Fair $30 per staff hour $70 per staff hour $90 per staff hour N/A. + any direct costs + any direct costs + any direct costs Webinar $25 per webinar hour $25 per webinar hour $25 per webinar hour $25 per webinar hour. Website Globalization $100 $300 $400 N/A.
    Revised User Fee Schedule for Investment Promotion Services/Events Service Fee for commercial service staff time for U.S. economic development organizations 7
  • (Does not include other direct costs, when applicable, such as transportation, use of contractors, venue rental, promotional materials,
  • catering, etc.)
  • Facilitated Investment Mission 8 Full package: $1,200 per stop; or
  • $30 per staff hour if not Full Package.
  • + any direct costs.
  • International Company Profile—Full $700. International Company Profile—Partial $150. Other Services/Events $30 per staff hour.
  • + any direct costs.
  • Seminar $30 per staff hour.
  • + any direct costs.
  • Single Location Promotion $30 per staff hour.
  • + any direct costs.
  • Trade Event $30 per staff hour.
  • + any direct costs.
  • Notes:

    All Events: All ITA staff time required to support an event is to be assessed a user fee at the hourly rates listed. When the size and number of the participants for an event is unknown, the estimated number of participants by company size will be used to apply the approved hourly rates.

    7 Other direct costs not included in the service description must be covered by the client in the form of additional user fees. Types of other direct costs include translation, transportation, use of contractors, venue rental, catering, etc.

    8 Full package includes a market briefing, networking event/reception, and matchmaking.

    All Services: When requested by one entity on behalf of another entity(s), a user fee for ITA staff time will be assessed based on the company size of the end client(s)/ultimate beneficiary(ies) and not based on the size of the requesting entity.

    All Standardized Fee Services/Events: When ITA uses an alternative service provider/contractor (ASP) to complete some or all of the standardized tasks included in the statement of work for a standardized fee service/event, if the cost billed to ITA by the ASP plus the cost for any ITA staff time and other direct costs incurred is more than the ITA standardized fees, then an additional fee must be collected to recover the difference. However, if the cost billed to ITA by the ASP plus the cost for any ITA staff time and other direct costs incurred required to perform the service is less than the ITA standardized fees, then no additional fee will be collected.

    Fee Reductions for Follow-on Services: The table below lists the standardized fees to be charged if the follow-on service is provided after the initial service. The fee has been reduced for the follow-on service because the level of effort required is reduced by performing the initial service. However, if an Alternative Service Provider (ASP) is used to deliver the follow-on service, the cost billed to GM by the ASP and all other direct costs, must be fully recovered from the client in the form of additional fees. Payment for the follow-on service must be received within the deadline specified in the table below to be eligible for the reduced fee listed.

    Initial service Follow-on service and reduced fee Deadline to purchase
  • follow-on
  • service
  • Initial Market Check International Partner Search: $550 for a Small Company; $1,300 for a Medium Company; and $1,650 for a Large Company 180 days. International Partner Search Plus Virtual Introductions: $700 for a Small Company; $1,650 for a Medium Company; and $2,100 for a Large Company Gold Key Service: $750 for a Small Company; $1,850 for a Medium Company; and $2,800 for a Large Company International Partner Search International Partner Search Plus Virtual Introductions: $150 for a Small Company; $350 for a Medium Company; and $450 for a Large Company 60 days. Gold Key Service = $625 for a Small Company; $1,400 for a Medium Company; and $1,800 for a Large Company International Company Profile—Partial International Company Profile—Full: $550 for a Small Company; $850 for a Medium Company; and $1,550 for a Large Company 30 days.

    • Business Service Provider: Individual category fee. To be listed in more than one category, there is an additional fee per category of $30 for small companies, $50 for medium companies and $70 for large companies. The annual renewal fee is $75 for small companies, $125 for medium companies and $175 for large companies.

    • Certified Trade Mission: The fee is assessed per Post/city. Applicants will be charged a fee for an Initial Market Check if staff is uncertain about their market potential. The fee paid by the applicant is then applied to their Certified Trade Mission fee if they participate in the mission.

    • Featured U.S. Exporter: Listings are typically provided for up to 5 markets. An individual market listing can be provided for $30 for small companies, $50 for medium companies, and $70 for large companies. The annual renewal fee for 5 listings is $75 for small companies, $175 for medium companies, and $250 for large companies. An individual market listing can be renewed for $15 for small companies, $25 for medium companies, and $35 for large companies. Fee for translation is per language and will be charged for the initial listing and for adjustments requested.

    • Initial Market Check: Is a required precursor for more time intensive services if staff is uncertain about a client's market potential. Fees paid for the Initial Market Check will then be applied to one follow-on service if the results are positive.

    • Webinars: Will be provided at a standard fee of $25 per participant per webinar hour. No charge for webinar participation will be assessed by ITA when the purpose is to promote/recruit for an ITA or other USG agency hosted event or when serving only as a guest speaker for a webinar organized by a third party.

    Conclusion

    Based on the information provided above, ITA believes its revised fee schedules are more consistent with the mission to promote “exports of goods and services from the United States, particularly by small businesses and medium businesses,” and better achieve the objective of OMB Circular A-25 to “promote efficient allocation of the nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as the cost to the U.S. Government of providing the special benefits.” ITA will reassess this fee schedule after its first year of implementation and, in accordance with OMB Circular A-25, at least every two years thereafter.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Aditi Palli, Program Analyst, Global Markets, International Trade Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11812 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Advance Notification of Sunset Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    Background

    Every five years, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury (i.e., a Sunset Review).

    Upcoming Sunset Reviews for July 2018

    Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, the following Sunset Review is scheduled for initiation in July 2018 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review.

    Department contact Antidumping Duty Proceedings No Sunset Review of antidumping duty orders is scheduled for initiation in July 2018 Countervailing Duty Proceedings No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in July 2018 Suspended Investigations Lemon Juice from Argentina (A-822-804) (4th Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312.

    Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in a Sunset Review.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), Commerce will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact Commerce in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.

    Please note that if Commerce receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue.

    Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.

    This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.

    Dated: May 16, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11813 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the Commission) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of Institution of Five-Year Reviews which covers the same order(s).

    DATES:

    Applicable (June 1, 2018).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commerce official identified in the Initiation of Review section below at AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its Procedures for Conducting Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    Initiation of Review

    In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):

    DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Commerce contact A-822-804 731-TA-873 Belarus Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. A-570-860 731-TA-874 China Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. A-570-908 731-TA-1110 China Sodium Hexametaphosphate (2nd Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. A-570-985 731-TA-1203 China Xanthan Gum (1st Review) Matthew Renkey, (202) 482-2312. A-560-811 731-TA-875 Indonesia Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. A-449-804 731-TA-878 Latvia Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. A-841-804 731-TA-879 Moldova Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. A-455-803 731-TA-880 Poland Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. A-823-809 731-TA-882 Ukraine Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (3rd Review) James Terpstra, (202) 482-3965. Filing Information

    As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Commerces's regulations, Commerce's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on Commerce's website at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sunset/. All submissions in these Sunset Reviews must be filed in accordance with Commerce's regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.1

    1See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.2 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).3 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    2See section 782(b) of the Act.

    3See also Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    On April 10, 2013, Commerce modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).4 Parties are advised to review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments. To the extent that other regulations govern the submission of factual information in a segment (such as 19 CFR 351.218), these time limits will continue to be applied. Parties are also advised to review the final rule concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in AD/CVD proceedings, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1309frn/2013-22853.txt, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.5

    4See Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013).

    5See Extension of Time Limits, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013).

    Letters of Appearance and Administrative Protective Orders

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), Commerce will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation. Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. Commerce's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

    Information Required From Interested Parties

    Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with Commerce's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, Commerce will automatically revoke the order without further review.6

    6See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).

    If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, Commerce's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must file complete substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic parties. Also, note that

    Commerce's information requirements are distinct from the Commission's information requirements. Consult Commerce's regulations for information regarding Commerce's conduct of Sunset Reviews. Consult Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce.

    This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

    Dated: May 16, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11815 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on June 20, 2018, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and June 21, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings on June 20 and 21 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services (OSCPBS), International Trade Administration. Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness and on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

    Matters To Be Considered: Committee members are expected to continue to discuss the major competitiveness-related topics raised at the previous Committee meetings, including trade and competitiveness; freight movement and policy; trade innovation; regulatory issues; finance and infrastructure; and workforce development. The Committee's subcommittees will report on the status of their work regarding these topics. The agenda may change to accommodate other Committee business. The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final detailed agendas on its website, http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/, at least one week prior to the meeting.

    The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or [email protected] five (5) business days before the meeting.

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 11014, Washington, DC 20230, or email to [email protected]

    For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 12, 2018. Comments received after June 12, 2018, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee website within 60 days of the meeting.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Maureen Smith, Director, Office of Supply Chain.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11737 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF985 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Coast Boulevard Improvements Project, La Jolla, California AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization (IHA).

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from the City of San Diego (the City) for an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take three species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to Coast Boulevard improvements in La Jolla, California. The project has been delayed, such that none of the work covered in the identical IHA issued in 2017 was initiated and, therefore, the City requested that an identical IHA be issued to cover the same work in 2018. NMFS is, therefore, issuing a second IHA to cover the incidental take analyzed and authorized in the initial IHA. The scope of the activities and anticipated effects remain the same, authorized take numbers would not change, and the required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting would remain the same as authorized in the 2017 IHA referenced above. NMFS is therefore notifying the public about the issuance of an IHA to the City to incidentally take marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, during the City's Coast Boulevard improvements.

    DATES:

    Valid June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    An electronic copy of the final 2017 IHA previously issued to the City, the City's application, and the Federal Register notices proposing and issuing the 2017 IHA may be obtained by visiting https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Fowler, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (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.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action with respect to environmental consequences on the human environment.

    Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion.

    History of Request

    NMFS received a request from the City for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Coast Boulevard improvements in La Jolla, California on December 16, 2016. On March 1, 2017, we deemed the City's application for authorization to be adequate and complete. We published a notice of a proposed IHA and request for comments on April 26, 2017 (82 FR 19221), and subsequently issued an IHA to the City on May 31, 2017, and published final notice of our issuance of the IHA on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 29511).

    On October 19, 2017, the City informed NMFS that while some structural integrity testing of the existing concrete at the project location had occurred over 4 days in July, none of the work identified in the IHA that was expected to result in the take of marine mammals (i.e., construction or demolition work) had occurred and no take of any marine mammals had occurred.

    On January 4, 2018, the City submitted a formal request for a new identical IHA that would be effective from June 1, 2018 through December 14, 2018, in order to conduct the construction and demolition work that was analyzed and authorized through the previously issued IHA.

    The planned activities are the same as those proposed in the previous IHA application and the potential incidental take the same as that authorized through the previously issued IHA, and include improvements to an existing public parking lot, sidewalk, and landscaping areas located on the bluff tops above Children's Pool, a public beach located in La Jolla, California. Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). The City's request was for harassment only and NMFS concurs that mortality is not expected to result from this activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

    Description of Proposed Activity and Anticipated Impacts

    The 2017 IHA covered improvements to an existing public parking lot, sidewalk, and landscaping areas located on the bluff tops above Children's Pool to upgrade public access and safety. Planned demolition activities included the removal of existing parking lot paving; concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and the removal of existing irrigation and plant materials. Planned construction activities included subgrade preparation, asphalt paving, and marking of parking stalls; pouring of concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk; construction of rock walls, installation of fencing, placement of landscape boulders, installation of landscaping and irrigation; and finishing and clean up. The 2017 IHA authorized the Level B harassment of 1,620 harbor seals, 36 California sea lions and 14 northern elephant seals. The City did not conduct any demolition or construction activities, and no takes of marine mammals occurred, and now requests that this second IHA cover all demolition and construction activities as those proposed in the 2017 IHA application and authorized via the 2017 IHA.

    We refer to the documents related to the previously issued IHA, which include the Federal Register notice of the issuance of the 2017 IHA for the City's construction and demolition work (82 FR 29511), the City's application, the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 19221), and all associated references and documents.

    Detailed Description of the Action—A detailed description of the proposed demolition and construction activities is found in these previous documents. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices.

    Description of Marine Mammals—A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to this IHA as well. In addition, NMFS has reviewed recent draft Stock Assessment Reports, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and recent scientific literature, and determined that no new information affects our original analysis of impacts under the current IHA. Since issuing the 2017 IHA, NMFS published draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) (82 FR 60181; 19 December 2017). The abundance estimates reported in the draft SARs did not change for any of three species proposed to be taken in this authorization.

    Potential Effects on Marine Mammals—A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat is found in these previous documents, which remains applicable to this IHA. There is no new information on potential effects.

    Estimated Take—A description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take anticipated to occur and, ultimately, the take that was authorized is found in these previous documents. The methods of estimating take are identical to those used in the previous IHA, as is the density of marine mammals. The number of takes authorized is the same as the number of takes authorized via the previous IHA. Level A incidental take is not expected to occur for the same reasons discussed in the previous documents and none is authorized.

    Description of Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measures—A description of mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures is found in the previous documents, which are identical in this IHA. In summary, mitigation will include limiting construction to outside of the harbor seal pupping season (December 15 to May 15), limiting construction to daylight hours only, using the loudest equipment only between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., and monitoring both airborne noise and marine mammals. One trained protected species observer will monitor the proposed activities to collect information of responses of marine mammals to the activities.

    On October 19, 2017, the City submitted a monitoring report for the minimal work that had been completed on the existing concrete under the 2017 IHA (work that was not expected to result in take of marine mammals, but which was part of the overarching activity). The City complied with all mitigation, monitoring, and reporting protocols. No marine mammal takes were expected, authorized, or recorded. The monitoring report can be viewed on NMFS's website: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities.

    Determinations

    The City will conduct activities identical to those analyzed in the previous 2017 IHA. As described above, the number of authorized takes of the same species and stocks of marine mammals are identical to the numbers that were found to meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards and authorized under the 2017 IHA. This 2018 IHA includes identical required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures as the 2017 IHA, and there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.

    Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) The required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) the City's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

    However, no incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

    Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to the City of San Diego for Coast Boulevard improvements in La Jolla, CA from June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2019. All previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements from the 2017-2018 IHA are incorporated.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11785 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG257 Meeting of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's (MAFAC's) Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force (CBP Task Force). The CBP Task Force will discuss the issues outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 19, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on June 20, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Columbia Gorge Hotel, 4000 West Cliff Drive, Hood River, OR 97031; 541-386-5566.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Cheney; NFMS West Coast Region; 503-231-6730; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC's CBP Task Force. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/partners#marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-. The CBP Task Force reports to MAFAC and is being convened to develop recommendations for long-term goals to meet Columbia Basin salmon recovery, conservation needs, and harvest opportunities, in the context of habitat capacity and other factors that affect salmon mortality. More information is available at the CBP Task Force web page: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/columbia_river/index.html.

    Matters To Be Considered

    The meeting time and agenda are subject to change. Meeting topics to be discussed include draft qualitative and quantitative goals for the Columbia Basin species, approaches to integrate the information towards developing basin-wide goals, and the outline and components of the report. The meeting is open to the public as observers, and public input will be accepted on June 20, 2018, from 1:15 to 1:45 p.m., limited to the time available.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Katherine Cheney, 503-231-6730, by June 8, 2018.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Jennifer L. Lukens, Federal Program Officer, Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11800 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID USAF-2018-HQ-0003] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force Judge Advocate General 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 31, 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 The Judge Advocate General, Headquarters, United States Air Force, 1420 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1420 or call 1-800-524-8723.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Web-based Legal Information Online System (WebLIONS); OMB Control Number 0701-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: Requesting authorization to collect information on individuals who seek assistance from the Air Force in resolving their personal legal issues. Air Force personnel use WebLIONS to create and maintain records on these individuals in order to perform their official duties and to manage the legal assistance program. The system allows personnel to review and track cases, as well as perform conflict checks. It is also consulted by attorneys and paralegals when they are generating legal documents for their clients.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 9,550.

    Number of Respondents: 191,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 191,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Public respondents to WebLIONS include retired military personnel and dependents of active duty and retired military personnel. The completed online questionnaires are used during the intake process to determine an individual's eligibility for legal assistance, as well as assisting attorneys in performing their official duties while providing services to their clients. WebLIONS also acts as a database to review and track cases as well as assist in conflicts checks. This information is vital to the sustainability and viability of continued Air Force support to legal assistance activities.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11763 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2018-HQ-0003] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Army Survivor Advisory Working Group (SAWG); OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Applicants

    Number of Respondents: 150.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 150.

    Average Burden per Response: 2 Hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 300.

    Nominees

    Number of Respondents: 25.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 25.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 Minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 6.25.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain applications from individuals who may provide advice and recommendations regarding vital Total Army (Active Component, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve) Survivor quality of life issues. From those applications, nominees will be selected to advance in the selection process. Once selected, advisors assess how current Survivor programs and initiatives may affect the Survivor community.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11790 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Board of Advisors to the Presidents of the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College (“the Board”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The charter and contact information for the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/. The Board provides independent advice on matters relating to the Naval Postgraduate School and the Naval War College. The Board shall be composed of no more than 10 members who are eminent authorities in the fields of academia, business, national defense and security, the defense industry, and research and analysis. Members of the Board who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Members of the Board who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. Each Board member is appointed to provide advice on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Board-related travel and per diem, Board members serve without compensation. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Board/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Such statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned Board meetings. All written statements must be submitted to the Board's DFO who will ensure the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11762 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Homeland Defense Radar in Hawaii AGENCY:

    Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announces its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. MDA is proposing to construct and operate a Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii or HDR-H (a radar to identify, track, and classify long-range ballistic missile threats in mid-course flight), an In-Flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminal or IDT (a facility that provides communication (incorporating data provided byHDR-H) between the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense fire control system and the interceptor that are both stationed elsewhere), and associated support facilities and infrastructure on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to support the United States (U.S.) ballistic missile defense system and enhance homeland defense capabilities in the Pacific region including Hawaii. The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act requires the MDA to develop a plan to procure and field a “discrimination radar” to improve the defense of Hawaii from ballistic missile threats. MDA is preparing the EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the HDR-H. The Department of Defense has not made a decision concerning the location of where to construct and operate the HDR-H, but has initially evaluated the potential alternatives from a mission requirements standpoint.

    DATES:

    The MDA invites public comments on the scope of the HDR-H EIS during a 45-day public scoping period beginning with publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments will be accepted on or before July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments, statements, and/or concerns regarding the scope of the EIS or requests to be added to the EIS distribution list should be addressed to MDA HDR-H EIS and sent by email to [email protected], by facsimile at 256-713-1617, or by U.S. Postal Service to: KFS, LLC, Attn: MDA HDR-H EIS, 303 Williams Ave., Suite 116, Huntsville, AL 35801. Electronic or facsimile comments are preferred. If sending comments by U.S. Postal Service, please do not submit duplicate electronic or facsimile comments. All comments, including names and addresses, will be included in the administrative record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    MDA Public Affairs at 256-450-1599 or 571-231-8210, or by email: [email protected] Additional information can be found at MDA's website: https://www.mda.mil/news/nepa_documents.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.6, the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy will be cooperating agencies in preparing the EIS. Other cooperating agencies may be identified during the scoping process. Deployment of the HDR-H at a candidate location on Oahu would be within an approximate 160-acre notional boundary, as much as topography and environmental conditions allow, that would be cleared of vegetation, grubbed, and graded. The new facility site would include radar equipment, the Homeland Defense Radar Equipment Shelter, Mission Control Facility, IDT, Radar Cooling Shelter, Military Satellite Communications, Power Plant, and Bulk Diesel Fuel Storage. These mission critical facilities would be within a restricted fenced area. Located within or outside of the restricted area would be other mission support facilities that include an Entry Control Facility, Maintenance Facility, Water Supply and Treatment Buildings, Electrical Substation, and a remote Fuel Fill Station. Additional site utilities and roadway improvements, including communications, electrical connections, water supply, sewer, stormwater drainage, fire protection, sidewalks, and parking would be located within and outside the restricted area.

    In addition to the No Action Alternative, the EIS will analyze alternative sites for the proposed radar facility at: (1) Kuaokala Ridge on State land adjacent to Kaena Point Satellite Tracking Station and (2) Kahuku Training Area on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. If deployed at Kuaokala Ridge, the use of approximately 160 acres of State land within the Agricultural District (for the facility footprint, buffer, and construction laydown areas), as well as the right of access to the site, would be required. At each alternative location, impacts will be assessed for the following resource topics: Air quality, airspace management, biological resources, coastal zone management, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste, health and safety, infrastructure and transportation, land use and recreation, noise, socioeconomics and environmental justice, water resources, and visual resources.

    In addition to satisfying compliance requirements under NEPA, the EIS will also comply with the provisions of the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA). MDA encourages all interested members of the public, as well as federal, state, and local agencies to participate in the scoping process for the preparation of this EIS. The scoping process assists in determining the scope of issues to be addressed, other alternatives that should be considered, and helps identify significant environmental issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS.

    Public scoping meetings will be held in the communities of Haleiwa, Waianae, and Honolulu on Oahu, Hawaii, within 30 days from the publication of this Notice of Intent. The meetings will be in an open house format, which provides attendees the opportunity to speak with and ask questions of representatives from the MDA, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Army. The meetings will have the same format and content at all locations. Notification of the public scoping meeting locations, dates, and times will be published and announced in local news media prior to the meetings.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11733 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0078] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS); OMB Control Number 0704-0496.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change.

    Number of Respondents: 22,225.

    Responses per Respondent: 45.

    Annual Responses: 1,000,125.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 333,375 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary as the JPAS system requires personal data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring such credentials. As a Personnel Security System it is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in accesses determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at wh[email protected]

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11791 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Thursday, May 31, 2018Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) will take place.

    DATES:

    Day 1—Open to the public Tuesday, June 19, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Day 2—Open to the public Wednesday, June 20, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address of the open meeting is the Sheraton Pentagon City, 900 S Orme St., Arlington, VA 22204.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colonel Toya Davis (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350. Website: http://dacowits.defense.gov. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the DACOWITS to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work. The meeting will open with the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) giving a status update on the DACOWITS' requests for information. This will be followed with a briefing from the military Services and DACOWITS' discussion on personal protective equipment/gear for women. There will then be a public comment period. Day one will end with an awards ceremony for departing DACOWITS members. The second day of the meeting will open with a briefing from Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs on the “This is Your Military” DoD initiative. This will be followed by an overview briefing by representative of the National Guard and DACOWITS discussion on the National Guard. Lastly the DACOWITS will receive an update briefing from the Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Office of the Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, on Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment and DACOWITS discussion.

    Agenda: Tuesday, June 19, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.—Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements; Request for Information Status Update; Briefings and DACOWITS discussion on: Personal Protective Equipment/Gear for Women; Public Comment Period; Awards Ceremony. Wednesday, June 20, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.—Welcome and Announcements; Briefing and DACOWITS discussion on: “This is Your Military” DoD Initiative; National Guard Overview; and Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Update.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, interested persons may submit a written statement to the DACOWITS. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to Mr. Robert Bowling (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350 no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday June 14, 2018. If a written statement is not received by Thursday, June 14, 2018, prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the DACOWITS until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DACOWITS Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Committee. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement, a written statement should be submitted. After reviewing the written comments, the Chair and the DFO will determine if the requesting persons is permitted to make an oral presentation of their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), determination of who will be making an oral presentation is at the sole discretion of the Committee Chair and the DFO, and will depend on time available and if the topics are relevant to the Committee's activities. Five minutes will be allotted to persons desiring to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Tuesday, June 19, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. in front of the full Committee. The number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11808 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2018-OS-0006] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application; DD Form 2789; OMB Number 0730-0009.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement.

    Number of Respondents: 4,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 4,500.

    Average Burden per Response: 1.33 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 6,000.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary for current or former DoD civilian employees or military members to request waiver or remission of an indebtedness owed to the Department of Defense. Under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, and 32 U.S.C. 716, certain debts arising out of erroneous payments may be waived. Under 10 U.S.C. 4837, 10 U.S.C. 6161, and 10 U.S.C. 9837, certain debts may be remitted. Information obtained through this form is used in adjudicating the request for waiver or remission. Remissions apply only to active duty military members, and thus are not covered under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11760 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2018-OS-0014] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Defense Information System for Security (DISS); OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Number of Respondents: 22,225.

    Responses per Respondent: 45.

    Annual Responses: 1,000,125.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 333,375 hours.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection is necessary as the DISS system requires personal data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring such credentials. As a Personnel Security System it is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in accesses determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11792 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (“the Committee”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a). The Committee's charter and contact information for the Committee's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/. The Committee makes periodic reports and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army with respect to the administration of Arlington National Cemetery, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Committee will be composed of no more than nine members who are eminent authorities in their respective fields of interest or expertise, specifically bereavement practices and administrative oversight, the erection of memorials, and master planning for extending the life of a cemetery. Members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. All members are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Committee-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Committee's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Committee, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Committee and must report all their recommendations and advice solely to the Committee for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Committee. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Committee's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Committee/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Committee membership about the Committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Committee. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Committee, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11810 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2018-OS-0011] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense New Hire Forms; DD X735, DD X739, DDX741; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Type of Request: Existing collection.

    Number of Respondents: 82,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 82,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 6,833.35 hours.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to ensure that all new hires across the Department of Defense meet the basic requirements of civil service. The New Hire Forms, DD X735, “Release/Consent Statement;” DD X739, “Civilian Employee's Military Reserve, Guard, or Retiree Data;” and DD X741, “Term Employment Statement of Understanding,” supplant and standardize the paperwork used throughout the Department of Defense to verify the eligibility of onboarding employees.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11788 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-2018-FSA-00151] Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protections Amendments of 1990 (Privacy Act), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the conduct of computer matching programs, notice is hereby given of the renewal of the computer matching program between the Department of Education (ED) (recipient agency) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) (source agency).

    DATES:

    Submit your comments on the proposed matching program on or before July 2, 2018.

    The matching program will go into effect at the later of the following two dates: June 20, 2018 or 30 days after the publication of this notice, on June 1, 2018, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public requiring modification and republication of the notice.

    The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date of the computer matching agreement (CMA) and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about this new CMA, address them to: Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: (202)377-3385.

    Privacy Note: ED's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: (202)377-3385.

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 421(a)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 862(a)(1)) includes provisions regarding the judicial denial of Federal benefits. Section 421 of the Controlled Substances Act, which was originally enacted as section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and which was amended and redesignated as section 421 of the Controlled Substances Act by section 1002(d) of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-647 (hereinafter referred to as “section 5301”), authorizes Federal and State judges to deny certain Federal benefits (including student financial assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)) to individuals convicted of drug trafficking or possession of a controlled substance.

    In order to ensure that HEA student financial assistance is not awarded to individuals subject to denial of benefits under court orders issued pursuant to section 5301, DOJ and ED implemented a computer matching program. The 18-month CMA was recertified for an additional 12 months on June 20, 2017. The 12-month recertification of the CMA will automatically expire on June 19, 2018.

    For the purpose of ensuring that HEA student financial assistance is not awarded to individuals denied benefits by court orders issued under the Denial of Federal Benefits Program, ED must continue to obtain from DOJ identifying information regarding individuals who are the subject of section 5301 denial of benefits court orders. The purpose of this notice is to announce the continued operation of the computer matching program and to provide certain required information concerning the computer matching program.

    PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

    The Department of Education (ED) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

    AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING THE MATCHING PROGRAM:

    Under section 5301, ED must deny Federal benefits to any individual upon whom a Federal or State court order has imposed a penalty denying eligibility for those benefits. Student financial assistance under the HEA is a Federal benefit and under section 5301, ED must, in order to meet its obligations under the HEA, have access to information about individuals who have been declared ineligible under section 5301.

    While DOJ provides information under section 5301 about individuals who are ineligible for Federal benefits to the General Services Administration (GSA) for inclusion in GSA's List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs, DOJ and ED have determined that matching against the DOJ database is more efficient and effective than matching against the GSA List. The DOJ database has specific information about the HEA programs for which individuals are ineligible, as well as the expiration of the debarment period, making the DOJ database more complete than the GSA List. Both of these elements are essential for a successful match.

    PURPOSE(S):

    The purpose of this matching program is to ensure that the requirements of section 421 of the Controlled Substances Act (originally enacted as section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Public Law 100-690, 21 U.S.C. 853a, which was amended and redesignated as section 421 of the Controlled Substances Act by section 1002(d) of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Public Law 101-647) (hereinafter referred to as “section 5301”) are met.

    DOJ is the lead contact agency for information related to section 5301 violations and, as such, provides this data to ED. ED seeks access to the information contained in the Denial of Federal Benefits and Defense Procurement Fraud Debarment Clearinghouse program (DFB/DPFD) database (formerly known as DEBARS) that is authorized under section 5301 for the purpose of ensuring that HEA student financial assistance is not awarded to individuals subject to denial of benefits under court orders issued pursuant to the Denial of Federal Benefits Program.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS:

    The individuals whose records are included in this matching program are individuals who are the subject of section 5301 denial of benefits court orders, and all students who complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid. ED receives data from the DOJ DFB/DPFD system that is used to match title IV, HEA applicant data in ED's Central Processing System (Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01)).

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS:

    ED will use the Social Security number (SSN), date of birth, and the first two letters of an applicant's last name for the match. These data elements are contained in ED's Central Processing System. The DOJ DFB/DPFD system contains the names, SSNs, dates of birth, and other identifying information regarding individuals convicted of Federal or State offenses involving drug trafficking or possession of a controlled substance that have been denied Federal benefits by Federal or State courts. This system of records also contains information concerning the specific program or programs for which benefits have been denied, as well as the duration of the period of ineligibility. DOJ will make available for the matching program the records of only those individuals who have been denied Federal benefits under one or more of the title IV, HEA programs.

    SYSTEM(S) OF RECORDS:

    DOJ system of records: DFB/DPFD (The most recent full DFB/DPFD system of records notice was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1999, 64 FR 25071.) ED system of records: Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01). (The most recent ED system of records notice was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2011, 76 FR 46774.) (Note: The ED Central Processing System [CPS] is the ED information system that processes data from the Federal Student Aid Application File.)

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of ED published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by ED.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a; 21 U.S.C. 862(a)(1).

    Dated: May 29, 2018. James F. Manning, Acting Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11856 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case Number 2017-014] Notice of Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Huawei From the Department of Energy External Power Supply Test Procedure AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision and order.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a Decision and Order granting Huawei Technologies, Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) a waiver from specified portions of the DOE test procedure for determining the energy efficiency of specified external power supply (“EPS”) basic models. Huawei is required to test and rate the specified basic models of its EPS in accordance with the alternate test procedure described in the Decision and Order.

    DATES:

    The Decision and Order is effective on June 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 1, 2017, Huawei filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the applicable EPS test procedure set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z. On March 23, 2018, DOE published a notice announcing its receipt of the petition for waiver and its granting Huawei an interim waiver. 83 FR 12737. In that notice, DOE also solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and specified an alternate test procedure that must be followed for testing and certifying the specific basic models for which Huawei requested a waiver. Id. On June 1, 2018, DOE publishes this notice announcing a Decision and Order granting a wavier to Huawei. This notice includes a copy of the Decision and Order DOE issued to Huawei.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Case #2017-014 Decision and Order I. Background and Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program that includes EPSs, which are the subject of this Order. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36); 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures.

    1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the EPS Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 115-115 (January 12, 2018).

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

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

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedure for EPSs is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies (“Appendix Z”).

    Under 10 CFR 430.27, any interested person may submit a petition for waiver from DOE's test procedure requirements. DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or that the prescribed test procedures evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). DOE may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. Id.

    II. Petition for Waiver: Assertions and Determinations

    By e-mail with attachment dated December 1, 2017, Huawei filed a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure for EPSs under 10 CFR 430.27 for several basic models of adaptive EPSs 3 that meet the provisions of the International Electrotechnical Commission's “Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power—Part 1-2: Common components—USB Power Delivery” (“IEC 62680-1-2:2017”) specification.4 The purpose behind this specification is to help provide a standardized approach for power supply and peripheral developers to ensure backward compatibility while retaining product design and marketing flexibility. See generally, IEC 62680-1-2:2017 (Abstract) (describing the standard's general provisions and purpose).

    3 The specific basic models for which the petition applies are EPS basic models HW-200200UPX, HW-200300UPX, HW-200325UPX, and HW-200500UPX. These basic model names were provided by Huawei in its December 1, 2017 petition.

    4 International Electrotechnical Commission Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power—Part 1-2: Common components—USB Power Delivery specification, https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/26174/

    In Huawei's view, applying the DOE test procedure to the adaptive EPSs specified in its petitions would yield results that would be unrepresentative of the active-mode efficiency of those products. The DOE test procedure requires that the average active-mode efficiency for adaptive EPSs be measured by testing the unit twice—once at the highest achievable output voltage (“V”) and once at the lowest. The test procedure requires that active-mode efficiency be measured at four loading conditions relative to the nameplate output current of the EPS. See 10 CFR 430.23(bb) and Appendix Z. The lowest achievable output voltage supported by the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification is 5V and the nameplate current at this voltage output is 3 amps (“A”), resulting in a power output of 15 W. Huawei contends that while the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification requires the tested EPS to support this power output, the 15W at 5V condition will be rarely used and only for brief periods of time, and that adaptive EPSs operating at 5V do not exceed 10W for almost all usage conditions.

    Huawei contended that, when charging a product that is sold or intended to be used with the adaptive EPS, the EPS charges at 5 volts only with a dead battery or fully charged battery (and then at 0.5A or less). At other times when more power is needed, the adaptive EPS will use a higher voltage rail (greater than 5V). (A “voltage rail” refers to a single voltage provided by the relevant power supply unit through a dedicated circuit/wire used for that voltage.) Huawei further stated that when using an adaptive EPS that supports the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification to charge an end-use product of a manufacturer different from the one who manufactured the EPS, it is likely that the product would charge at less than 10W at 5V, or may even be capable of exploiting the ability of an adaptive EPS to provide higher voltages for faster charging.

    Accordingly, Huawei asserted that the DOE test procedure's measurement of efficiency at the prescribed power level (i.e., 5V, 3A) is unrepresentative of the true energy consumption of these EPSs. Consequently, it sought a waiver from DOE to permit it to use an alternate test procedure to measure the energy efficiency of the specified adaptive EPSs that support the IEC 62680-1-2:2017 specification by testing these devices at the lowest voltage, 5V, and at an output power at 10W instead of 15W.

    On March 23, 2018, DOE published a notice announcing its receipt of the petition for waiver, and granting Huawei an interim waiver. 83 FR 12737. In the notice of petition for waiver, DOE reviewed the alternate test procedure suggested by Huawei and granted the interim waiver. DOE found that the alternate test procedure would allow for the accurate measurement of efficiency of these EPSs, while alleviating the testing problems associated with Huawei's implementation of EPS testing for the basic models specified in its petition. DOE also solicited comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition and specified an alternate test procedure that must be followed for testing and certifying the specific basic models for which Huawei's requested a wavier. Id. DOE received no relevant comments in response to the notice of petition for waiver.5

    5 DOE received seven anonymous comments regarding issues unrelated to the waiver petition. See the docket for this notice at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0061.

    Based on the information provided by Huawei, DOE has determined that the current test procedure at Appendix Z would evaluate the specified EPS basic models in a manner so unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Therefore, in the Decision and Order, DOE is requiring that Huawei test and rate the EPS basic models for which it has requested a waiver according to the alternate test procedure specified in the Decision and Order, which is identical to the procedure provided in the interim waiver.6

    6 The alternate test procedure specified in this Decision and Order is also identical to the alternate test procedure in the Decision and Order issuing individual waivers to Apple, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Poin2 Lab, and Hefei Bitland Information Technology Co. Ltd. 83 FR 11738 (March 16, 2018).

    In its petition Huawei sought a test procedure waiver for certain basic models. The Decision and Order is applicable only to the basic models listed within it and does not extend to any other basic models.

    Manufacturers not currently distributing such a product in commerce in the United States must petition for and be granted a waiver prior to the distribution in commerce of that product in the United States. Manufacturers may also submit a request for interim waiver pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 430.27.

    III. Consultations with Other Agencies

    In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2), DOE consulted with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) staff concerning the Huawei petition for waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to granting a waiver to Huawei.

    IV. Order

    After careful consideration of all the material that was submitted by Huawei in this matter, DOE grants a waiver regarding the below specified basic models. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27, it is ORDERED that:

    (1) Huawei must test and rate Huawei brand EPS basic models HW-200200UPX, HW-200300UPX, HW-200325UPX, HW-200500UPX in accordance with the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (2) of this section.

    (2) The alternate test procedure for the Huawei basic models listed in paragraph (1) of this section of this Order is the test procedure for EPSs prescribed by DOE at Appendix Z, except that under section 4(a)(i)(E) and Table 1 of Appendix Z, the adaptive EPSs must be tested such that when testing at the lowest achievable output voltage (i.e., 5V), the Nameplate Output Current shall be 2A (which corresponds to an output power of 10W at the 100% loading condition). The 75%, 50%, and 25% loading conditions shall be scaled accordingly and the nameplate output power of such an EPS, at the lowest output voltage, shall be equal to 10W.

    (3) Representations. Huawei must make representations about the efficiency of the basic models identified in paragraph (1) of this section for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that the basic model has been tested in accordance with the provisions set forth above and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with Appendix Z and 10 CFR 429.37.

    (4) This waiver shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27. This Decision and Order will terminate on the compliance date of any future updates to the test procedure for EPSs located in Appendix Z that address the issue presented in the waiver. At such time, testing to demonstrate compliance with standards, and any other representations of energy use, will require manufacturers to use the relevant test procedure for these products.

    (5) This waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentation provided by Huawei are valid. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(1). Likewise, Huawei may request that DOE rescind or modify the waiver if Huawei discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 430.27(k)(2).

    (6) Granting of this waiver does not release Huawei from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2018.

    Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11793 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 31, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent by email to [email protected] Include “Paperwork Reduction Act” in the subject line. Comments can also be sent by fax at (202) 586-6789 or by mail to Katie Strangis, Policy Advisor, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, NA-24, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Room 7F-075, Washington, DC 20585. Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE encourages responders to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information on DOE's regulation of assistance to foreign atomic energy activities pursuant to 10 CFR part 810 is available at https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/10-cfr-part-810. For other questions, contact Katie Strangis, Policy Advisor, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, NA-24, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Room 7F-075, Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-8623.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. A1901-0263; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities; (3) Type of Review: Extension; (4) Purpose: This collection of information is necessary in order to provide the Secretary of Energy with the appropriate information needed to make informed determinations regarding requests to directly or indirectly engage or participate in the development or production of special nuclear material outside the United States; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 89; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 596; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,788; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $178,600. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Statutory Authority: Section 57 b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 and Section 161(c) of the AEA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2018. Sean Oehlbert, Acting Policy Director, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11787 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9978-77-ORD] Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods; Designation of One New Reference Method AGENCY:

    Office of Research and Development; Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of the designation of a new reference method for monitoring ambient air quality.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated one new reference method for measuring concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Phone: 919-541-7877. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQS. A list of all reference or equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.

    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference method for measuring concentrations of NO2 in ambient air. This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015(80 FR 65291-65468).

    The new reference method for NO2 is an automated method (analyzer) utilizing the measurement principle based on gas phase chemiluminescence. This newly designated reference method is identified as follows:

    RFNA-0418-250, “Sabio Model 6040 Ambient NO/NO2/NOX Analyzer”, operated in the measurement range of 0-0.5 PPM, an any ambient temperature in the range of 5-40 °C, within a line voltage range determined by the selected optional pump [115 VAC external pump: 105-125 VAC (60 Hz); 230 VAC external pump: 210-250 VAC (50-60 Hz); 24 VDC internal pump: 90-260 VAC (50-60 Hz)], at any sample flow rate in the range of 0.50-0.75 L/min, in accordance with the “Sabio Model 6040 Ambient NO/NO2/NOX Analyzer Instruction Manual”, with or without optional zero/span ports for external calibration, and with or without an optional inlet filter.

    This application for a reference method determination for this NO2 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on March 28, 2018. This analyzer is commercially available from the applicant, Sutron Corporation, 21 Cypress Blvd., Suite 1130, Round Rock, TX 78665.

    A representative test analyzer was tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on October 26, 2015. After reviewing the results of those tests and other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in accordance with part 53, that this method should be designated as a reference method.

    As a designated reference method, this method is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, this method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the designated method description (see the identification of the method above).

    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,” EPA/600/R-94/038a and “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program,” EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

    Designation of this reference method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

    Dated: May 21, 2018. Timothy Watkins, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11832 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9039-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 05/21/2018 Through 05/25/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180111, Draft, NMFS, NAT, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Issuing Annual Catch Limits to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission for a Subsistence Hunt on Bowhead Whales for the Years 2019 and Beyond, Comment Period Ends: 07/24/2018, Contact: John Henderschedt, 301-427-8385. EIS No. 20180112, Draft, FHWA, NY, Hunts Point Interstate Access Improvement Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2018, Contact: Erik Koester, 718-482-4683. EIS No. 20180113, Draft, CBP, ID, Bog Creek Road Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2018, Contact: Paul Enriquez 949-643-6365. EIS No. 20180114, Final Supplement, USACE, LA, Integrated General Reevaluation Report & Supplement III to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Baton Rouge to the Gulf, Louisiana Project, Review Period Ends: 07/02/2018, Contact: Steve Roberts 504-862-2517. EIS No. 20180115, Draft, USFS, WA, Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2018, Contact: Johnny Collin 509-843-4643. EIS No. 20180116, Draft Supplement, FHWA, WI, WIS 23 Fond du Lac to Plymouth, 2018 Limited Scope Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 07/31/2018, Contact: Michael Davies 608-829-7500. EIS No. 20180117, Draft, NJDEP, NJ, Rebuild by Design (RBD) Meadowlands Flood Protection Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2018, Contact: Dennis Reinknecht 609-777-4152. EIS No. 20180118, Final, USDA, TX, Cattle Fever Tick Eradication Program—Tick Control Barrier, Review Period Ends: 07/02/2018, Contact: Dr. Denise Bonilla 970-494-7317. Dated: May 29, 2018. Rob Tomiak, Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11773 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440; FRL-9978-73-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Plant-Incorporated Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting” (EPA ICR No. 1693.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0142). This is a request to renew the approval of an existing ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2018. EPA did not receive any public comments in response to the previously provided public review opportunity issued in the Federal Register of September 13, 2017. With this submission to OMB, EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public review and comment. 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:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0440, to both EPA and OMB as follows:

    • To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and

    • To OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to the OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryne Yarger, Field and External Affairs Division, 7506P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-605-1193; fax number: 703-305-5884; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Docket: Supporting documents, including the ICR that explains in detail the information collection activities and the related burden and cost estimates that are summarized in this document, are available in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: This ICR addresses the two information collection requirements contained in the regulations codified in 40 CFR part 174 pertaining to pesticidal substances that are produced by plants (plant-incorporated protectants, or PIPs). A PIP is defined as “the pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in a living plant and the genetic material necessary for the production of such a substance.” Many, but not all, PIPs are exempt from registration requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

    CBI is protected by FIFRA and generally cannot be released to the public. For most pesticide registration applications, the current CBI regulations at 40 CFR part 2 require that claimants substantiate their CBI claims for their own records when the claim is made, and subsequently provide the substantiation to EPA only if requested. However, under 40 CFR part 174, whenever a registrant claims that information submitted to EPA in support of a PIP registration application contains CBI, the registrant must substantiate such claims to EPA when they are made. In addition, 40 CFR part 174 also requires manufacturers of PIPs that are otherwise exempted from registration requirements to report any adverse effects of the PIP to the Agency within 30 days of when the information is first obtained. Such reporting will allow the Agency to determine whether further action is needed to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include producers and importers of PIPs. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes for respondents under this ICR include: 325320 (Pesticide and other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing), 325414 (Biological Products (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing), 422910 (Farm Supplies Wholesalers), 422930 (Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florist's Suppliers), 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences), and 611310 (Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools).

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.

    Estimated number of respondents: 24 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 518 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $41,892 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 86 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's updating of burden estimates for this collection based upon historical information on the number of CBI substantiations per year. Based upon revised estimates, the number of CBI substantiations per year has increased from 20 to 24, with a corresponding increase in the associated burden. This change is an adjustment.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11802 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0467; FRL-9976-98] 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 October 3, 2017 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 October 3, 2017 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 180-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 applicable June 1, 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-2017-0467, 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 53883-370 53883 Quali-Pro Oxadiazon 50 WSB Oxadiazon. CA-130009 91606 Aspergillus Flavus AF36 Aspergillus flavus strain AF36. WY-080010 8033 Assail 70WP Insecticide Acetamiprid. Table 2—Product Registration Amendments to Terminate Uses Registration No. Company No. Product name Active ingredient Uses to be terminated 2724-404 2724 Zoecon RF-322 Ovicidal Pump Spray MGK 264; Piperonyl butoxide; Pyrethrins; & S-Methoprene Use on horses. 49620-2 49620 EKA SC-R Sodium chlorate Defoliants/desiccants applied to: Agricultural drainage systems, beans (dried type), corn, cotton, fallow land, flax, guar, peas (Southern), peppers (chili type), potatoes, rice, safflower, sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers, wheat; and as an herbicide applied to nonagricultural settings (commercial, industrial, and residential). 49620-6 49620 EKA SC-R Aqueous Sodium chlorate Defoliants/desiccants applied to: Agricultural drainage systems, beans (dried type), corn, cotton, fallow land, flax, guar, peas (Southern), peppers (chili type), potatoes, rice, safflower, sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers, wheat; and as an herbicide applied to nonagricultural settings (commercial, industrial, and residential).

    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.

    Table 3—Registrants of Cancelled and Amended Products EPA company No. Company name and address 2724 Wellmark International, 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumburg, IL 60173. 8033 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., Agent Name: Nisso America, Inc., 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10005. 49620 Akzo Nobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals, Inc., Agent Name: Keller and Heckman, LLP, 1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. 53883 Control Solutions, Inc., 5903 Genoa Red Bluff Road, Pasadena, TX 77507. 91606 California Cattlemen's Association Feeder Council, 1221 H Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. 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 June 1, 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 October 3, 2017 (82 FR 46050) (FRL-9966-87). The comment period closed on April 2, 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 53883-370

    The registrant has requested to the Agency via letter to distribute existing stocks for an 18-month period for products 53883-370.

    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. 2018-11755 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension Without Change of an Existing Collection; Submission for OMB Review AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission announces that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the existing recordkeeping requirements under its regulations.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this notice must be submitted to Joseph B. Nye, Policy Analyst, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, email [email protected] Commenters are also encouraged to send comments to the EEOC online at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. In addition, the EEOC's Executive Secretariat will accept comments in hard copy. Hard copy comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Executive Officer, EEOC, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507. Finally, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“fax”) machine before the same deadline at (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Receipt of fax transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) The EEOC will post online at http://www.regulations.gov all comments submitted via this website, in hard copy, or by fax to the Executive Secretariat. These comments will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide. However, the EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting comments, including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters Library, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments will be provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment, contact EEOC Library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Oram, Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4681 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY), or Erin Norris, Senior Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 W Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202, (704) 954-6491 (voice). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which collectively prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or genetic information. Section 709(c) of Title VII, section 107(a) of the ADA, and section 207(a) of GINA authorize the EEOC to issue recordkeeping and reporting regulations that are deemed reasonable, necessary or appropriate. EEOC has promulgated recordkeeping regulations under those authorities that are contained in 29 CFR part 1602 et seq. Those regulations do not require the creation of any particular records but generally require employers to preserve any personnel and employment records they make or keep for a period of one year. The EEOC seeks extension of the recordkeeping requirement in these regulations without change.

    A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2018, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. Three comments were received from the public; however, none of these comments addressed the EEOC's recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the requirements based upon the unresponsive comments.

    Overview of Current Information Collection

    Collection Title: Recordkeeping under Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

    OMB Number: 3046-0040.

    Description of Affected Public: Employers with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII, the ADA, and GINA.

    Number of Respondents: 961,709.

    Number of Reports Submitted: 0.

    Estimated Burden Hours: 37,264 hours.

    Cost to Respondents: $0.

    Federal Cost: None.

    Number of Forms: None.

    Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), section 1007(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12117(a), and section 207(a) of GINA, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6(a), require the Commission to establish regulations pursuant to which employers subject to those Acts shall make and preserve certain records to assist the EEOC in assuring compliance with the Acts' nondiscrimination in employment requirements. This is a recordkeeping requirement. Any of the records maintained which are subsequently disclosed to the EEOC during an investigation are protected from public disclosure by the confidentiality provisions of section 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII which are also incorporated by reference into the ADA at section 107(a) and GINA at section 207(a).

    Burden Statement: The estimated number of respondents subject to this recordkeeping requirement is 961,709 employers. An employer subject to the recordkeeping requirement in 29 CFR part 1602 must retain all personnel or employment records made or kept by that employer for one year, and must retain any records relevant to charges of discrimination filed under Title VII, the ADA, or GINA until final disposition of those matters, which may be longer than one year. This recordkeeping requirement does not require reports or the creation of new documents, but merely requires retention of documents that an employer has already made or kept in the normal course of its business operations. Thus, existing employers bear no burden under this analysis, because their systems for retaining personnel and employment records are already in place. Newly formed firms may incur a small burden when setting up their data collection and retention systems to ensure compliance with EEOC's recordkeeping requirements. We assume some effort and time must be expended by employers to familiarize themselves with the Title VII, ADA, and GINA recordkeeping requirements and explain those requirements to the appropriate staff. We estimate that 30 minutes would be needed for this one-time familiarization process. Using 2015 data from the Small Business Administration, we estimate that there are 74,528 firms that would incur this start-up burden.1 Assuming a 30-minute burden per firm, the total annual hour burden is 37,264 hours (.5 hour × 74,528 = 37,264).

    1 Source: U.S. Small Business Administration: Statistics of U.S. Business, Release Date 1/2017. (https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/firm-size-data). Select U.S. Static Data, U.S. Data and combines estimates from private employment, public sector, colleges and universities, and referral unions.

    For the Commission.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11798 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    June 6, 2018; 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    800 N Capitol Street NW, First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public and will be streamed live at https://bit.ly/2IZBIkY.

    MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Open Session 1. Staff Briefing on Monitoring of Ocean Carrier and Marine Terminal Operator Agreements 2. Docket No. 17-10: NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs) and NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs) CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Rachel Dickon, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.

    Rachel Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11881 Filed 5-30-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-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 Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Gaylon M. Lawrence, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee; to acquire outstanding shares of Volunteer State Bancshares, Inc., and thereby acquire shares of Volunteer State Bank, both of Portland, Tennessee.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 25, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11744 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0048; Docket 2018-0003; Sequence No. 9] Information Collection; Authorized Negotiators AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Authorized Negotiators.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check regulations.gov, approximately two-to-three business days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-208-4949, or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Per FAR 52.215-1(c)(2)(iv), firms offering supplies or services to the Government under negotiated solicitations must provide the names, titles, and telephone numbers of authorized negotiators to assure that discussions are held with authorized individuals. The information collected is referred to before contract negotiations and it becomes part of the official contract file.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 15,524.

    Responses per Respondent: 8.

    Total Responses: 124,192.

    Hours per Response: .017.

    Total Burden Hours: 2111.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11778 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0067; Docket No. 2018-0003; Sequence No. 10] Information Collection; Incentive Contracts AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning incentive contracts.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check regulations.gov, approximately two-to-three business days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-208-4949 or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    In accordance with FAR 16.4, incentive contracts are normally used when a firm fixed-price contract is not appropriate and the required supplies or services can be acquired at lower costs, and sometimes with improved delivery or technical performance, by relating the amount of profit or fee payable under the contract to the contractor's performance.

    The information required periodically from the contractor, such as cost of work already performed, estimated costs of further performance necessary to complete all work, total contract price for supplies or services accepted by the Government for which final prices have been established, and estimated costs allocable to supplies or services accepted by the Government and for which final prices have not been established, is needed to negotiate the final prices of incentive-related items and services. Contractors are required to submit the information in accordance with several incentive fee FAR clauses: FAR 52.216-16, Incentive Price Revision—Firm Target; FAR 52.216-17, Incentive Price Revision—Successive Targets; and FAR 52.216-10, Incentive Fee.

    The contracting officer evaluates the information received to determine the contractor's performance in meeting the incentive target and the appropriate price revision, if any, for the items or services.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 181.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 362.

    Hours per Response: 1.5.

    Total Burden Hours: 543.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0067, Incentive Contracts, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11779 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0076; Docket No. 2018-0003; Sequence No. 13] Information Collection; Novation/Change of Name Requirements AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Novation/Change of Name Requirements.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check regulations.gov, approximately two-to-three business days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-208-4949 or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation 42.1203 and 42.1204 provide requirements for contractors to request novation/change of name agreements and supporting documents when a firm performing under Government contracts wishes the Government to recognize (1) a successor in interest to these contracts, or (2) a name change, it must submit certain documentation to the Government.

    Estimates are based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System for fiscal years 2015 through 2017, which accounts for the decrease from 1,178 estimated respondents to 547 estimated respondents. This has resulted in the public burden hours being reduced to 1,094 from 2,356 for the information collection.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 547.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 547.

    Hours per Response: 2.0.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,094.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0076, Novation/Change of Name Requirements, in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Lorin S. Curit, Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11780 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-18-18UC; Docket No. CDC-2018-0029] 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 the 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 Evaluation of the Sodium Reduction in Communities Program (SRCP) to estimate the costs to SRCP partners of implementing sodium reduction strategies. The proposed data collection aims to understand the costs to SRCP partner of implementing sodium reduction strategies.

    DATES:

    CDC must receive written comments on or before July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0029 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

    Evaluation of the Sodium Reduction in Communities Program—New Collection—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The CDC, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), requests a one-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection project titled Evaluation of the Sodium Reduction in Communities Program.

    The CDC is the primary Federal agency for protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. CDC is committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.

    Sodium reduction is a public health imperative. Although the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends no more than 2,300 mg/day of sodium for adults, U.S. adults consume an average of more than 3,500 mg/day. CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2013-2014 indicate that men over the age of 20 consume an average of 4,099 mg/day of sodium. The significant gap between recommended intake and average intake poses a serious public health risk; high sodium intake can lead to hypertension, a common and costly health risk in the United States. Researchers indicate that the number of American adults with hypertension, estimated at 77.9 million, continues to grow. The increasing prevalence of hypertension is especially troubling because high blood pressure can lead to serious health issues, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and kidney disease. One study projected that the real direct medical costs of CVD will triple between 2010 and 2030, from $273 billion to $818 billion. Recent studies have shown that even modest population-level sodium reductions can lead to significant decreases in blood pressure and to potentially enormous savings—in lives and in dollars.

    Reducing sodium levels presents a special set of challenges for public health programs because high sodium intake is largely the result of sodium found in processed foods and foods prepared in restaurants. Commonly used to enhance flavor, texture, and viscosity or to preserve foods, salt is often hidden and difficult for consumers to recognize. Past sodium reduction initiatives that focused on consumer outreach and education succeeded in creating awareness of the link between sodium and hypertension, but failed to make a significant impact on consumption levels. Although consumer outreach and education should be a part of any sodium reduction strategy, these strategies are independently insufficient. As such, multiple reports by the Institute of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration have asserted the need for large-scale, population-based efforts to decrease sodium consumption.

    Recognizing the importance of population-based approaches, CDC launched the first round of the SRCP in 2010 to reduce sodium intake by helping to create healthier food environments and a second round in 2013 to reduce sodium intake in food environments through population-based sodium reduction strategies. SRCP's project goals include increasing access to and availability of lower-sodium food options. The long-term goal of the initiative is to reduce sodium intake within the recommended levels in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

    The 2010 SRCP awardees implemented strategies in a variety of venues, including worksites, schools, independent restaurants, grocery and convenience stores, hospitals, and venues serving meals for older adults (e.g., senior and congregate meal sites). RTI International led the cross-site evaluation for these communities and found that achievements at the community level have the potential to bolster ongoing efforts at the individual, organizational, and national levels, and vice versa. Thus, community-based sodium reduction strategies play an important role in supporting broader changes and individual behavior changes. RTI is currently wrapping up the evaluation of the second round of SRCP, and preliminary findings demonstrate a strong impact of the program on availability, accessibility, and purchase of lower sodium options.

    CDC funded eight SRCP communities in 2016 to continue improving community and environmental supports for sodium reduction and to build practice-based evidence around effective population-based strategies to reduce sodium consumption. These communities are partnering with organizations to implement sodium reduction strategies in their food service venues. By creating a healthier environment, CDC seeks to decrease the population-wide burden of sodium intake.

    CDC and RTI International propose to collect information from all partners of SRCP grantees that are willing to participate in order to estimate the costs to SRCP partners of implementing sodium reduction strategies. Partner organizations are those that work to implement the sodium reduction strategies in their food services and can include worksites, schools, universities, hospitals, senior meal programs, food banks, and restaurants. The information collection will occur via a cost data collection survey, in which respondents will be asked about a key set of sodium reduction activities that were developed during the evaluation of SRCP round two based on interviews with SRCP partners. Respondents are asked to report on all costs since beginning work on sodium reduction strategies as part of SRCP. While grantees began work on SRCP in 2016, partners began work at different times, so the time period of costs will vary by partner. Therefore, we also ask how long they have been working on sodium reduction. For each activity, respondents will be asked the number and types of staff that worked on the activity, the average monthly number of hours worked on that activity for each staff member, the number of months worked by each staff member, and how long the activity will continue. Additionally, for each activity, respondents will be asked to report any non-labor expenditures on materials or supplies. RTI will work with CDC and grantees to reach out to partners and request their participation in the survey. We will request participation from all SRCP partners via email.

    The insights to be gained from this data collection will be critical to understanding the full costs of implementing SRCP at all levels of implementation for a set of key sodium reduction activities, which is an important factor in program planning and maintaining program longevity and sustainability. The estimated annual burden hours are 88.

    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)
  • Partner Program Manager Cost Survey 88 1 1 88 Total 88
    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. 2018-11789 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier CMS-10249] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; 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 (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 a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate 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 on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    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 http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    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:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    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. 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 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-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 that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Administrative Requirements for Section 6071 of the Deficit Reduction Act; Use: State Operational Protocols should provide enough information such that: The CMS Project Officer and other federal officials may use it to understand the operation of the demonstration, prepare for potential site visits without needing additional information, or both; the State Project Director can use it as the manual for program implementation; and external stakeholders may use it to understand the operation of the demonstration. The financial information collection is used in our financial statements and shared with the auditors who validate CMS' financial position. The Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) Finders File, MFP Program Participation Data file, and MFP Services File are used by the national evaluation contractor to assess program outcomes while we use the information to monitor program implementation. The MFP Quality of Life data is used by the national evaluation contractor to assess program outcomes. The evaluation is used to determine how participants' quality of life changes after transitioning to the community. The semi-annual progress report is used by the national evaluation contractor and CMS to monitor program implementation at the grantee level. Form Number: CMS-10249 (OMB control number: 0938-1053); Frequency: Yearly, quarterly, and semi-annually; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 45; Total Annual Responses: 28,590; Total Annual Hours: 14,225. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Effie George at 410-786-8639.)

    Dated: May 29, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11823 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-7050-N] Medicare & Medicaid Programs, and Other Program Initiatives, and Priorities; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), June 20, 2018 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the next meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning CMS programs, initiatives and priorities. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time (e.d.t).

    Deadline for Meeting Registration, Presentations, Special Accommodations and Comments: Wednesday, June 6, 2018, 5:00 p.m., e.d.t.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 505A, Conference Room, Washington, DC 20201.

    Presentations and Written Comments: Presentations and written comments should be submitted to: Lynne Johnson, Acting Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Communications, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mailstop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 or via email at [email protected]

    Registration: The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register at the website https://www.regonline.com/apoejun2018meeting or by contacting the Acting DFO listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation or other special accommodations should contact the Acting DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynne Johnson, Acting Designated Federal Official, Office of Communications, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, 410-786-0090, email [email protected] Additional information about the APOE is available on the internet at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/APOE.html. Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a).

    The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 1 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

    1 We note that the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education is also referred to as the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (65 FR 4617). The name was updated in the Second Amended Charter approved on July 24, 2000.

    The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

    In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

    The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the MarketplaceSM. The APOE (the Panel) allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

    The scope of this Panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

    On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 19, 2017, and will terminate on January 19, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.

    Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

    • Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, and other CMS programs.

    • Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

    • Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs, and other CMS programs.

    • Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

    • Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

    • Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

    The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the June 20, 2018 meeting will include the following:

    • Welcome and listening session with CMS leadership • Recap of the previous (March 21, 2018 and September 13, 2017) meetings • CMS programs, initiatives, and priorities • An opportunity for public comment • Meeting summary, review of recommendations, and next steps

    Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    III. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by contacting the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or by telephone at the number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. This meeting will be held in a federal government building, the Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH) Building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable.

    The REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13) establishes minimum standards for the issuance of state-issued driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards. It prohibits federal agencies from accepting an official driver's license or ID card from a state for any official purpose unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security determines that the state meets these standards. Beginning October 2015, photo IDs (such as a valid driver's license) issued by a state or territory not in compliance with the Real ID Act will not be accepted as identification to enter federal buildings. Visitors from these states/territories will need to provide alternative proof of identification (such as a valid passport) to gain entrance into federal buildings. The current list of states from which a federal agency may accept driver's licenses for an official purpose is found at http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief.

    We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:

    • Presentation of a government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

    • Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into HHH Building, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

    Note:

    Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting.

    IV. Collection of Information

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Authority:

    Sec. 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)), sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), and sec. 10(a) of Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).

    Dated: May 16, 2018. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11837 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Immediate Disaster Case Management Intake Assessment.

    OMB No.: 0970-0461.

    Description: This Federal Register Notice (FRN) is a request for a decision to approve the following proposed information collection: Immediate Disaster Case Management (IDCM) Intake Assessment.

    The IDCM Intake Assessment is intended to allow Immediate Disaster Case Management workers the ability to collect specific information, which includes demographics, and disaster caused unmet needs, from disaster survivors in order to create an in depth profile within the Electronic Case Management Record System (ECMRS.) This profile will provide a basis for the IDCM worker to generate and make available specific and customized plans of emergency assistance, and provide connections and referrals for disaster affected victims to Federal, state, local resources, which is critical to developing an overall recovery plan for each disaster survivor.

    Respondents: Disaster Survivors

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Immediate Disaster Case Management Intake Assessment 1,000,000 1 1 1,000,000

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,000,000.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected].

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11805 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Number: 93.568] Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2017 Funds for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) AGENCY:

    Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public comment on the determination concerning funds available for reallotment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a preliminary determination that funds from the fiscal year (FY) 2017 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) are available for reallotment to States, Territories, Tribes, and Tribal Organizations that received FY 2018 direct LIHEAP grants. No subgrantees or other entities may apply for these funds.

    Section 2607(b)(1) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (the Act), (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1)) requires that, if the Secretary of HHS determines that, as of September 1 of any fiscal year, an amount in excess of 10 percent of the amount awarded to a grantee for that fiscal year (excluding Leveraging and REACH funds) will not be used by the grantee during that fiscal year, then the Secretary must notify the grantee and publish a notice in the Federal Register that such funds may be reallotted to LIHEAP grantees during the following fiscal year. If reallotted, the LIHEAP block grant allocation formula will be used to distribute the funds. No funds may be allotted to entities that are not direct LIHEAP grantees during FY 2018.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before July 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted to: J. Janelle George, Acting Director, Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 330 C Street SW, 5th Floor, Mail Room 5425, Washington, DC 20201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Christopher, Director, Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 330 C Street SW, 5th Floor, Mail Room 5425, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 401-4870. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    It has been determined that $536,595 in LIHEAP funds may be available for reallotment during FY 2018. This determination is based on FY 2017 Carryover and Reallotment Reports which showed that fifteen grantees reported reallotment funds. These grantees were State of Alaska, Aniak Traditional Council, Association of Village Council Presidents, Bristol Bay Native Association, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Hoh Indian Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Navajo Nation, Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Samish Indian Nation, Three Affiliated Tribes, and Tyme Maidu Tribe Berry Creek Rancheria. Grantees submitted the FY 2017 Carryover and Reallotment Reports to the OCS, as required by regulations applicable to LIHEAP at 45 CFR 96.81(b).

    The LIHEAP statute allows grantees who have funds unobligated at the end of the federal fiscal year for which they are awarded to request that they be allowed to carry over up to 10 percent of their full-year allotments to the next federal fiscal year. Funds in excess of this amount must be returned to HHS and are subject to reallotment under section 2607(b)(1) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(1)). The amount described in this notice was reported by grantees as unobligated FY 2017 funds in excess of the amount that these grantees could carry over to FY 2018.

    In accordance with section 2607(b)(3) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(3)), comments will be accepted for a period of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice.

    After considering any comments submitted, all current LIHEAP grantees will be notified of the final reallotment amount redistributed to them for obligation in FY 2018. This decision will be published in a Dear Colleague Letter that gets posted to ACF's website.

    If funds are reallotted, they will be allocated in accordance with section 2604 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8623) and must be treated by LIHEAP grantees receiving them as an amount appropriated for FY 2018. As FY 2018 funds, they will be subject to all requirements of the Act, including section 2607(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 8626(b)(2)), which requires that a grantee obligate at least 90 percent of its total block grant allocation for a fiscal year by the end of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated, that is, by September 30, 2018.

    Estimated Reallotment Amounts of FY 2017 LIHEAP Funds Grantee name Reallotment amount State of Alaska $10,552 Aniak Traditional Council 840 Association of Village Council Presidents 164,654 Bristol Bay Native Association 13,605 Colorado River Indian Tribes 3,878 Navajo Nation 28,901 Tyme Maidu Tribe Berry Creek Rancheria 3 Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 62,871 Jicarilla Apache Nation 9,317 Three Affiliated Tribes 194,213 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 77 Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma 35,967 Hoh Indian Tribe 4,034 Kalispel Tribe of Indians 1,211 Samish Indian Nation 6,472 Total 536,595 Statutory Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 8626.

    Elizabeth Leo, Grants Policy Specialist, Division of Grants Policy, Office of Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11820 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: Administration for Native Americans Annual Data Report.

    OMB No. 0970-0475: Renewal.

    Description: The Administration for Native Americans is seeking renewal of the Annual Data Report (ADR). The ADR is an annual report to be completed at the end of every budget period of an ANA discretionary grant. The purpose of this information collection is to annually collect grantee data on outcome indicators, youth and elder engagement, partnerships, community participation, benefits and lessons learned. At the end of the project period, ANA will also collect data on beneficiaries, the overall achievement of the project goal, and project sustainability.

    This information collection will be housed in the On-Line Data Collection (OLDC) with in GrantSolutions.gov.

    Respondents: Tribal Government, Native non-profit organizations, Tribal Colleges & Universities receiving ANA discretionary funding.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • ADR 275 1 1 275

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 275.

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected]. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert A. Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11796 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1043] Waivers of the Single, Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Requirement; 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 “Waivers of the Single, Shared System REMS Requirement.” This guidance describes how FDA intends to consider granting a waiver of the requirement in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) that the applicant for an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) and its reference listed drug (RLD) use a single, shared system (SSS) for a required risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) with elements to assure safe use (ETASU).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 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-1043 for “Waivers of the Single, Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Requirement; 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, or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 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. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elaine Lippmann, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6238, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600, [email protected]; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Waivers of the Single, Shared System REMS Requirement.” This guidance describes how the Agency intends to consider granting a waiver of the requirement in section 505-1(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355-1(i)) that the applicant for an ANDA and its RLD use a SSS for a required REMS with ETASU.

    Section 505-l(i)(l)(B) of the FD&C Act requires that a holder of an ANDA under section 505(j) use a “single, shared system” with the RLD for any ETASU, unless FDA waives this requirement. The statute permits a waiver of the SSS requirement if FDA finds that (1) “the burden of creating a [SSS] outweighs the benefit of a single, system, taking into consideration the impact on health care providers, patients, the applicant for the [ANDA], and the holder of the reference drug product,” or (2) an aspect of the ETASU for the applicable listed drug is claimed by an unexpired patent or trade secret and the ANDA applicant certifies that it sought a license for use of the aspect, but was unable to obtain one. If a waiver of the SSS requirement is granted, the ANDA may use “a different, comparable aspect of the [ETASU],” instead of participating in a SSS with the RLD.

    This guidance is intended to explain the factors FDA will consider in evaluating a request for waiver of the SSS requirement and provide recommendations to ANDA applicants regarding the submission and content of waiver requests. The guidance also addresses FDA's interpretation of what constitutes a different, comparable aspect of the ETASU as described in section 505-1(i)(1)(B).

    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 “Waivers of the Single, Shared System REMS Requirement.” 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. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preparation and submission of waiver requests (as described in 21 CFR 314.90 for new drug application applicants and 314.99(b) for ANDA applicants) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. In accordance with the PRA, before publication of the final guidance document, FDA intends to solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information collections recommended in this guidance that are new or that would represent material modifications to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11784 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0920] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food 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 information collection requirements associated with current good manufacturing practice, hazard analysis, and risk-based preventive controls for human food.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 31, 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 31, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 31, 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-0920 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals.” 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:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [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.

    Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food—21 CFR Part 117 OMB Control Number 0910-0751—Extension

    This information collection supports FDA regulations. As amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) enables the Agency to better protect the public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. It enables FDA to focus more on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. FSMA recognizes the important role industry plays in ensuring the safety of the food supply, including the adoption of modern systems of preventive controls in food production. Specifically, section 418 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g) sets forth requirements for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for facilities that produce food for human consumption. To implement these provisions, regulations were codified under 21 CFR part 117—Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food. The regulations establish requirements for a written food safety plan; hazard analysis preventive controls; monitoring; corrective actions and corrections; verification; supply-chain program; recall plan; and associated records, and became effective November 16, 2015. Currently, we continue to evaluate burden associated with the information collection requirements; however, for purposes of extending the information collection we retain the currently approved figures as shown below.

    Our estimate of the burden for the information collection is as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    117.201(e); qualified facility 37,134 0.5 18,567 0.5 (30 minutes) 9,284 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    117.126(c) and 117.170(d); food safety plan and reanalysis 46,685 1 46,685 110 5,135,350 117.136; assurance records 16,285 1 16,285 0.25 (15 minutes) 4,071 117.145(c); monitoring records 8,143 730 5,944,390 0.05 (3 minutes) 297,220 117.150(d); corrective actions and corrections records 16,285 2 32,570 1 32,570 117.155(b); verification records 8,143 244 1,986,892 0.05 (3 minutes) 99,345 117.160; validation records 3,677 6 22,062 0.25 (15 minutes) 5,515 117.475(c)(7)-(9); supplier records 16,285 10 162,850 4 651,400 117.180(d); training records for preventive controls qualified individual 46,685 1 46,685 0.25 (15 minutes) 11,671 Total 6,237,142 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 21 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures
  • per respondent
  • Total annual
  • disclosures
  • Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    117.201(e); disclosure of food manufacturing facility address 37,134 1 37,134 0.25 (15 minutes) 9,284 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    These figures are based on our regulatory impact analysis in support of the final rule on preventive controls for human food, which published in the Federal Register of September 17, 2015 (80 FR 55908). Using Agency data, we estimated the number of food facilities that we believe are subject to the regulations. We base our estimate of the time necessary for the individual reporting, recordkeeping, and third-party disclosure activities on our experience with similar information collections.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11801 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1041] Development of a Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy; 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 “Development of a Shared System REMS.” This draft guidance provides recommendations on the development of a shared system risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for multiple prescription drug (including biological) products. This guidance describes some of the possible benefits of a shared system REMS, and provides general principles and recommendations to assist industry with the development of these programs.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by July 31, 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-1041 for “Development of a Shared System REMS; 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:

    Lubna Merchant, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4418, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5162, email: [email protected]; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Development of a Shared System REMS.” This guidance describes some of the possible benefits of shared system REMS, and provides general principles and recommendations to assist industry with the development of these programs.

    Section 505-l(i)(l)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355-1((i)(1)(B)) requires that a holder of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) approved under section 505(j) use a “single, shared system” with the reference listed drug (RLD) for any REMS with elements to assure safe use (ETASU) unless FDA waives this requirement.

    The requirement under section 505-1(i)(1)(B) regarding a “single, shared system” only applies to ANDAs. However, FDA recognizes that it may be in the interest of public health to have a shared system REMS in other cases because it may increase efficiencies for applicants and stakeholders. A shared system REMS can encompass multiple prescription drug products and can be developed and implemented jointly by two or more applicants. It can be a program shared by a drug that is the subject of an ANDA and the listed drug, as required in section 505-1(i)(1)(B) (described above). It can also involve multiple new drug applications, ANDAs, or biologics license applications, approved under section 505(b)(1), (b)(2), or (j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1), (b)(2) or (j)) or section 351(a) or (k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a) or (k)), respectively, that form a shared system voluntarily.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Waivers of the Single, Shared System REMS Requirement.” Among other things, that guidance describes how FDA will consider granting a waiver of the requirement in section 505-1(i) of the FD&C Act that the applicant for an ANDA and its RLD use a single, shared system for REMS with ETASU.

    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 “Development of a Shared System REMS.” 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. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preparation and submission of a drug master file (as described in 21 CFR 314.420) by applicants for their shared system REMS submissions has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. In accordance with the PRA, before publication of the final guidance document, FDA intends to solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information collections recommended in this guidance that are new or that would represent material modifications to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11783 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force; Amendment AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice; amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    A notice was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, May 3, 2018, to announce the inaugural meeting of the Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force (Task Force) and to invite the public to provide public comments. The period for written comments is currently scheduled to end close of business on May 25, 2018. The notice is being amended to extend the written public comment period for two weeks to allow more time for interested individuals to submit comments.

    DATES:

    The written public comment period has been extended. All written comments are due to be submitted on or before June 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Individuals submitting written comments should submit their comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alicia Richmond Scott, Designated Federal Official, Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Room 736E, Washington, DC 20201. Email: [email protected]. Telephone: (240) 453-2816.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Vanila M. Singh, Chief Medical Officer, HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11747 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).

    A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the Federal Register during the first week of each month. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines.

    If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.

    This notice is also available on the internet at http://www.samhsa.gov/workplace.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809); and on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920).

    The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.

    To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

    Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.

    In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

    HHS-Certified Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Dynacare, 6628 50th Street NW, Edmonton, AB Canada T6B 2N7, 780-784-1190, (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories) HHS-Certified Laboratories ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 844-486-9226 Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504-361-8989/800-433-3823, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.) Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804-378-9130, (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.) Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72209-7056, 501-202-2783, (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center) Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc., 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215-2802, 800-445-6917 DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800-235-4890 Dynacare,* 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519-679-1630, (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories)

    * The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

    Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (Federal Register, July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7920). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

    ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662-236-2609 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713-856-8288/800-800-2387 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908-526-2400/800-437-4986, (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.) Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-572-6900/800-833-3984, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group) Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866-827-8042/800-233-6339, (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center) LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913-888-3927/800-873-8845, (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.) MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651-636-7466/800-832-3244 Legacy Laboratory Services—MetroLab, 1225 NE 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503-413-5295/800-950-5295 Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612-725-2088, Testing for Veterans Affairs (VA) Employees Only National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661-322-4250/800-350-3515 One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888-747-3774, (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory) Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800-328-6942, (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory) Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509-755-8991/800-541-7891x7 Phamatech, Inc., 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128, 888-635-5840 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800-729-6432, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories) Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610-631-4600/877-642-2216, (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories) Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3700 Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 800-255-2159 STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800-442-0438 U.S. Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5235, 301-677-7085, Testing for Department of Defense (DoD) Employees Only Dated: May 29, 2018. Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11809 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of NMK Resources, INC., (Thorofare, NJ), as a Commercial Laboratory and Gauger AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of NMK Resources, Inc., as a commercial laboratory and gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that NMK Resources, Inc. has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 7, 2017.

    DATES:

    The accreditation and approval of NMK Resources, Inc., as commercial laboratory and gauger became effective on July 7, 2017. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2020.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melanie A. Glass, Science Officer, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that NMK Resources, Inc., 650 Grove Road, Suite #111, Thorofare, NJ 08086, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. NMK Resources, Inc. is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products per the American Petroleum Institute (API) Measurement Standards:

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties Data. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime measurement.

    NMK Resources, Inc. is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-04 ASTM D 95 Standard test method for water in petroleum products and bituminous materials by distillation. 27-11 ASTM D 445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity). 27-13 ASTM D 4294 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. 27-48 ASTM D 4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the website listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/gaulist_3.pdf.

    Dated: May 1, 2018. Dave Fluty, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Operations Support.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11850 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Availability of the Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the repair and maintenance of Bog Creek Road and closure of certain roads within the Blue-Grass Bear Management Unit in the Selkirk Mountains in Boundary County, Idaho; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) announce the availability of the Bog Creek Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for public review. The Draft EIS identifies and assesses potential impacts upon the environment of: Repairing and maintaining an approximately 5.6-mile section of the existing Bog Creek Road, which is located in the Selkirk Mountains in Boundary County, Idaho, within approximately two miles of the Canadian border, on land within the Blue-Grass Bear Management Unit (BMU) that is managed by the Forest Service; and closing for motorized use additional roads within the Blue-Grass BMU to comply with the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones and to reduce road density in the Blue-Grass BMU. This notice initiates the public review process for the Draft EIS. This process is conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the President's Council on Environmental Quality regulations for Implementing the NEPA, and CBP and Forest Service NEPA guidelines. The purpose of the public review process is to solicit public comments regarding the Draft EIS. Additionally, this notice, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, will allow members of the general public to provide comments to CBP and the Forest Service regarding whether the Proposed Action may have any potential impacts on any historic resources.

    DATES:

    For Comments: To ensure consideration, comments must be received by July 16, 2018. Comments may be submitted as set forth in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    For Public Open Houses: Public open houses will be held at the following times:

    Priest Lake, Idaho: June 19, 2018, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

    Sandpoint, Idaho: June 20, 2018, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

    Bonners Ferry, Idaho: June 21, 2018, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    For Obtaining Copies of the Draft EIS: Electronic copies of the Draft EIS are available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41296 and https://www.cbp.gov/document/environmental-assessments/bog-creek-road-project-environmental-impact-statement.

    CD-ROM and print copies are available by sending a request to Paul Enriquez at [email protected] or 949-643-6365 or at the following Forest Service locations:

    • The IPNF Supervisors Office, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho;

    • Sandpoint Ranger District, 1602 Ontario Street, Sandpoint, Idaho;

    • Bonners Ferry Ranger District, 6286 Main Street, Bonners Ferry, Idaho; and

    • Priest Lake Ranger District, 32203 Highway 57, Priest River, Idaho.

    For Submitting Comments: You may submit written comments on the Draft EIS during the 45-day comment period by mail or email, or by attending a public open house. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on the public comment process. Please submit your written comments using one of the following methods:

    Mail: Bog Creek Road EIS, P.O. Box 643, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002-0643;

    Email: [email protected];

    • Hand delivered to any of the Forest Service locations where CD-ROM and print copies of the Draft EIS are available; or

    FAX: 208-765-7426.

    For Public Open Houses: Public open houses will be held at the following locations:

    Priest Lake, Idaho: Priest Lake Ranger District—32203 Highway 57, Priest River, Idaho;

    Sandpoint, Idaho: Sandpoint Ranger District—1602 Ontario Street, Sandpoint, Idaho;

    Bonners Ferry, Idaho: Bonners Ferry Ranger District—6286 Main Street, Bonners Ferry, Idaho.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Enriquez, CBP, Border Patrol and Air and Marine Program Management Office, by telephone at 949-643-6365, or email at [email protected] Persons who require assistance accessing information, please contact the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Action

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) (collectively the Agencies) are proposing a road repair, maintenance, and motorized closure project in the Continental Mountain area of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests within the Bonners Ferry and Priest Lake Ranger Districts. The project has two objectives: (1) To provide safe east-west access for administrative use (as explained below) to this section of the U.S.-Canada border across the Selkirk Mountains, and (2) to meet grizzly bear motorized access standards within the Blue-Grass BMU of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone in order to comply with the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones (Access Amendment).

    The Bog Creek Road Project Draft EIS has been prepared to identify and assess potential impacts from the Proposed Action on the environment. The Proposed Action was developed through collaborative efforts between CBP, the Forest Service, and the public, and was designed to meet the goals and objectives established for the project while meeting as many other resource needs as possible. The Proposed Action consists of three components: (1) Road repair and maintenance of Bog Creek Road and change in motorized use designation; (2) change in motorized use designation for Blue Joe Creek Road; and (3) motorized closure of selected seasonally restricted Forest Service roads. The Proposed Action is described below.

    The first component is the repair and maintenance of an approximately 5.6-mile section of Bog Creek Road (Forest Service Road [FSR] 1013), which would be conducted to allow the road to meet Forest Service road maintenance level 2 standards and would generally allow access for high-clearance vehicles. Maintenance level 2 roads are described in Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. Bog Creek Road is currently designated as a seasonally restricted road. Motorized use by the Forest Service, CBP, law enforcement, and other administrative agencies is permitted between April 1 and November 15 (active bear year) but is limited to 57 administrative vehicle round trips per active bear year. After road repair activities, the road designation would change to administrative open (as-needed administrative motorized access). Under the administrative open road designation, Bog Creek Road would be open to as-needed administrative motorized access but not open to the public for motorized travel.

    Repair and maintenance would consist of grading and resurfacing areas of the road that have been heavily eroded by surface water flows, filling potholes, and removing protruding boulders. Repair would also include installation of six new culverts and replacement of six of the existing 67 corrugated metal pipe culverts located along the length of the roadway because they have partially rusted through, otherwise exceeded their usable life, or do not meet current design standards for width and capacity. The most intensive repair would occur at Spread Creek, where a culvert failure and road washout have made the road completely impassable. The road would not be widened, but limited areas that no longer meet minimum width requirements may require cut and fill work to achieve the desired road operating and safety standards. Trees and other vegetation within the roadway and to either side would be grubbed or cut back to facilitate safe vehicle passage.

    The second component is the change in motorized designation of Blue Joe Creek Road (FSR 2546). Blue Joe Creek Road extends from the eastern terminus of the Bog Creek Road, running 7.4 miles alongside Blue Joe Creek, to the Continental Mine property. Blue Joe Creek Road is currently designated as seasonally restricted, and motorized access is limited to 57 vehicle round trips per active bear year. Under the Proposed Action, the current seasonal restrictions that limit the number of motorized administrative trips along Blue Joe Creek Road would be removed. The road would be designated as administrative open, which would allow for as-needed administrative motorized trips. This change in designation, when combined with the Bog Creek Road designation change, would allow for administrative trips by private property owners to access their property within the Blue-Grass BMU.

    The final component is the motorized closure of selected seasonally restricted Forest Service roads. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 26 miles of seasonally restricted Forest Service roads would be closed to all wheeled motorized use within the Blue-Grass BMU. Closing the roads would allow the Forest Service to meet the requirements of at least 55 percent of the BMU as core area habitat, and no more than 26 percent of the BMU having a total motorized route density (TMRD) greater than 2 miles per square mile, as specified in the Access Amendment. The means by which motorized road closure would take place would vary by site and would include both decommissioning and long-term storage. Decommissioning involves permanently removing a road from the Forest Service transportation system. Long-term storage involves rendering a road undrivable. Roads stored for creation of grizzly bear core habitat would remain stored for a minimum of ten years. On-the-ground road work is typically the same or very similar for decommissioning and long-term storage, as both are intended to prevent future failures and erosion hazards. Both methods may involve one or a combination of the following treatments: Fully or partially recontouring the road prism, ripping the road surface, removing culverts and recontouring stream crossings, planting and seeding, mulching, or slashing disturbed areas.

    All roads proposed for motorized closure under the Proposed Action are currently classified as seasonally restricted Forest Service roads. Administrative motorized use of these roads is permitted between April 1 and November 15; non-motorized public access on these roads is permitted year-round.

    Alternatives

    The Agencies developed alternatives to the Proposed Action described above and disclose the environmental impacts of these alternatives in the Draft EIS. In addition to the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), there are two other action alternatives analyzed: Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 3) and Blue-Grass BMU West-East Open Access (Alternative 4).

    The No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) represents the effects of not implementing the proposed repair and maintenance of Bog Creek Road and motorized closure of seasonally restricted Forest Service roads, while taking into account the effects of other past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities occurring in the area. This alternative proposes that no repair and maintenance activities would occur on the 5.6-mile section of Bog Creek Road and that the 26 miles of seasonally restricted Forest Service roads would continue to be available for motorized use in accordance with seasonal access restrictions. There would be no change in Forest Service management of the roads and CBP activities in the Blue-Grass BMU. Although the Forest Service would continue to examine road closure options to meet Access Amendment requirements within the Blue-Grass BMU under the No-Action Alternative, compliance with the Access Amendment standards would not change until currently unidentified other viable road closure options are implemented.

    Alternative 3 is a modified version of the Proposed Action that would close a different set of seasonally restricted Forest Service roads to motorized access. The repair and maintenance activities proposed for Bog Creek Road and the administrative open designation for Bog Creek Road and Blue Joe Creek Road are the same as described under the Proposed Action. Under Alternative 3, approximately 25 miles of Forest Service roads would be closed to all motorized use by the Forest Service within the Blue-Grass BMU. This would allow the Forest Service to meet the Access Amendment grizzly bear core area habitat requirement of 55 percent and the TMRD requirement of 26 percent. Two of the nine roads proposed for motorized road closure under Alternative 3 would be different from the roads proposed for closure under the Proposed Action. These roads were included in this alternative because closing these roads would create more grizzly bear core area habitat in upper Grass Creek, a place that has been heavily and continuously used by grizzly bears since at least the 1980s. All roads proposed for motorized closure under Alternative 3 are classified as seasonally restricted Forest Service roads. Administrative motorized use of these roads is permitted between April 1 and November 15. Non-motorized public access on these roads is permitted year-round.

    Alternative 4 is a modified version of the Proposed Action that would open Bog Creek Road and roads along the eastern approach to Bog Creek Road to public motorized access. Under Alternative 4, Bog Creek Road repair and maintenance and the motorized closure of seasonally restricted Forest Service roads would be identical to the Proposed Action. After repair of Bog Creek Road is completed, Alternative 4 would designate the 5.6 miles of the repaired Bog Creek Road as open for public motorized access year-round. However, winter motorized snowmobile use by the public is currently not allowed on Bog Creek Road as a result of rulings by the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Washington on November 7, 2006, and February 27, 2007, relating to recovery of Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou and the potential impacts of snowmobile use within the recovery area. Approximately 7.4 miles of Blue Joe Creek Road would change to an administrative open designation (as-needed administrative motorized access). Additionally, the designation of roads along the eastern approach to Bog Creek Road (1 mile of FSR 2546 and FSRs 1011, 636, and 1009) would also change from the current seasonally restricted designation (limited motorized access) to an open road designation (public motorized access) to allow for continuous public motorized travel across the Blue-Grass BMU. Under Alternative 4, the same 26 miles of seasonally restricted Forest Service roads as identified in the Proposed Action would be closed to all wheeled motorized use within the Blue-Grass BMU.

    The Draft EIS addresses the potential impacts from the Proposed Action and alternatives. Evaluations were conducted on various resources present in the Blue-Grass BMU, including: Threatened and endangered species, wildlife, fish, special-status plants, water, soils, recreation, and heritage. A preferred alternative to the Proposed Action has not yet been identified by the Agencies.

    Public Comment and Open Houses

    The Draft EIS is available for public comment. The Agencies invite comments on all aspects of the Draft EIS. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Agencies will reference a specific section of the Draft EIS, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change. Substantive comments received during the comment period will be addressed in the Final EIS. The Final EIS will be made available to the public through a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register.

    This project is subject to 36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B of the Forest Service's Project-level Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process. Pursuant to 36 CFR part 218, only those who provide timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project during a comment period are eligible to file an objection with the Forest Service. Comments received regarding this Draft EIS are considered part of the administrative record for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. Within this context, a commenter's personally identifiable information, such as name and contact information, may be released to a third party upon request under the Freedom of Information Act. Comments submitted anonymously, without a name and contact information, will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the commenter with standing to participate in the Forest Service objection process.

    The Agencies will hold three public open houses to inform the public and solicit comments about the Draft EIS. The open houses will include displays and handouts and will provide an opportunity for the public to ask questions and submit written comments on the Draft EIS. Open house schedule is as follows:

    • June 19, 2018, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.: Priest Lake Ranger District—32203 Highway 57, Priest River, Idaho;

    • June 20, 2018, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.: Sandpoint Ranger District—1602 Ontario Street, Sandpoint, Idaho;

    • June 21, 2018, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.: Bonners Ferry Ranger District—6286 Main Street, Bonners Ferry, Idaho.

    This process is being conducted pursuant to the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), DHS Directive 023-01 and Instruction 023-01-001-01, and CBP and Forest Service NEPA guidelines.

    Prior Public Scoping

    Public scoping for the Bog Creek Road repair and maintenance proposal was initially conducted by CBP in February and March of 2013. Information gathered from the initial scoping effort was used to inform the Agencies about what level of NEPA analysis was necessary to evaluate the proposed project. The initial scoping information included the possibility that road closures may become part of the proposed action, but did not include specific motorized road closure information. Using initial scoping information, the Agencies determined that the NEPA analysis would be conducted through an EIS process.

    The Notice of Intent (NOI) stating that CBP and the Forest Service planned to prepare an EIS for the Bog Creek Road Project was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24839). The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from April 27 to May 27, 2016. The Proposed Action described in the NOI included both repair and maintenance of Bog Creek Road and motorized road closures of specific road segments in the Blue-Grass BMU. In total, 17 comment letters were received during the NOI scoping period.

    All scoping comments submitted during the initial scoping and NOI scoping were included in issue development for the current EIS process. A Scoping Report that summarizes both scoping efforts is available for review as part of the project record. The Scoping Report is available on the CBP public website: https://www.cbp.gov/document/environmental-assessments/bog-creek-road-project-environmental-impact-statement.

    Public Involvement in Historic Preservation Activities Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to review all actions which may affect resources listed on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places in order to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In accordance with NHPA, the Agencies seek to obtain public comments on historic preservation issues related to the road repair and closure of roads for motorized use. This process will also afford the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer and tribal governments a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.

    Next Steps

    After the public review period is complete and the Agencies have reviewed the results, a list of comments and responses will be compiled and included in the Final EIS. The Agencies will select a preferred alternative that will be set forth in the Final EIS and Draft Record of Decision (ROD). The Final EIS and Draft ROD will be made available to the public through an NOA in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Karl H. Calvo, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Facilities and Asset Management, Office of Enterprise Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Gregory C. Smith, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11766 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2018-N007]; [FXES11140100000-189-FF01E00000] Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Addressing the Issuance of Incidental Take Permits for Four Wind Energy Projects in Hawai`i AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; notice of public scoping meetings; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare a draft programmatic environmental impact statement addressing the potential impacts on the human environment caused by alternatives described in habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for four similar wind energy projects. The HCPs were submitted to the Service in support of requests for incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act authorizing the take of endangered species. The proposed permit actions involve a new HCP for the Pakini Nui Wind Farm on the Island of Hawai`i and major amendments to three existing HCPs addressing the Auwahi Wind and Kaheawa Wind Power II projects, both located on Maui, and the Kawailoa Wind Power project, located on O`ahu. All four wind energy facilities are already constructed and in operation. The proposed ITP and proposed ITP amendments would address take of three endangered species: The Hawaiian hoary bat, the Hawaiian goose, and the Hawaiian petrel.

    DATES:

    The public scoping period begins with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue through July 2, 2018. The Service will consider all written comments on the scope of the analysis that are received or postmarked by this date.

    Public meetings: The Service will hold three public scoping meetings, one each on the islands of Hawai`i, Maui, and O`ahu, at the following times during the scoping period:

    • Hawai`i: June 18, 2018, 6 to 8 p.m.

    • Maui: June 20, 2018, 6 to 8 p.m.

    • O`ahu: June 21, 2018 6 to 8 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods. Please include “Wind Energy HCPs and PEIS Scoping” in the subject line of your request, message, or comment.

    U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Honolulu, Hawai`i 96850.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 808-792-9580, Attn: Field Supervisor.

    Internet: You may obtain copies of this notice from the Service's Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office in Honolulu, Hawai`i, or on the internet at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/.

    Public meetings: The three public scoping meetings will be held at the following locations:

    • Hawai`i: Na`alehu Community Center, 95-5635 Mamalahoa Hwy., Na`alehu, Hawai`i, HI 96772.

    • Maui: Malcolm Center, 1305 North Holopono Street, Suite 5, Kīhei, Maui, HI 96753

    • O`ahu: Sunset Beach Recreation Center, 59-540 Kamehameha Hwy., Haleiwa, O`ahu, HI 96712

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Darren LeBlanc, at 808-792-9403, or Michelle Bogardus at 808-792-9473. 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. Also, 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:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process related to four incidental take permit (ITP) applications under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The applications are for four wind energy projects in Hawai`i. The proposed ITPs (involving one new and three amended ITPs) would authorize take of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat (ōpe`ape`a in Hawaiian; Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the endangered Hawaiian goose (nēnē in Hawaiian; Branta sandvicensis), and the endangered Hawaiian petrel (`ua`u in Hawaiian; Pterodroma sandwichensis).

    The Service provides this notice to (1) advise other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and the general public of our intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS); (2) announce the initiation of a 30-day scoping period; and (3) request information and recommendations on the scope of the issues to be included in the PEIS, including input on the appropriateness of our intent to develop a single PEIS addressing project-specific alternatives and cumulative impacts of the four separate permit decisions, instead of preparing an individual EIS for each of the proposed permit actions. The four wind energy facilities are already constructed and in operation. Therefore, the PEIS will address only effects associated with the operation of the four wind energy projects.

    The PEIS will serve as the Service's documentation of compliance with NEPA. The Service believes a programmatic NEPA analysis of similar wind energy project-related permit decisions provides the following benefits: A comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts across all projects; a reduction in duplicative efforts between projects; improved consistency in the analysis; and a more efficient and comprehensive solicitation of public input.

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under section 3 of the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is further defined by regulation in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as an act that actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is also further defined in the regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the Service may authorize take of federally listed species, if such take occurs incidental to otherwise legal activities and a habitat conservation plan (HCP) has been developed under section 10(a)(2)(A) that describes: (1) The impact that will likely result from such taking; (2) the steps an applicant will take to minimize and mitigate that take to the maximum extent practicable and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; (3) alternative actions to such taking that an applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being used; and (4) other measures the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan.

    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions for issuing ITPs to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities; (2) an applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) an applicant has ensured that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures we require as necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. The Service's general permitting regulations, found at 50 CFR 13.1-13.29, also apply to these actions.

    Proposed Action

    The Service intends to prepare a PEIS to evaluate the project-specific alternatives and cumulative impacts of four ITP decisions addressing a newly proposed HCP for the Pakini Nui Wind Farm and major amendments for three existing HCPs for the Auwahi Wind, Kawailoa Wind Power, and KWP II wind energy projects. If these proposed HCPs meet permit issuance criteria, the Service would issue separate ITPs to each of the four permit applicants. The existing projects, the amount of take authorized in their original ITP, and the estimated levels of take in the proposed new or amended HCPs (See Tables 1-3) are briefly described below. The ITPs, if issued, would authorize the incidental take of listed species caused by the operation of existing land-based wind energy facilities.

    Tables 1-3—Estimated Change in Authorized Take Requested for the Hawaiian Hoary Bat, the Hawaiian Petrel, and the Hawaiian Goose per Project Applicant Project Take currently
  • authorized 1 2
  • Change Total 3
    Table 1—Hawaiian Hoary Bat Auwahi 21 +176 197 Kawailoa 60 +162 222 KWPII 11 +27 38 Pakini Nui NA +26 26 Total 92 +391 483 Table 2—Hawaiian Petrel4 Auwahi 87 0 87 Kawailoa 0 +7 7 KWPII 43 0 43 Pakini Nui NA +3 3 Total 130 +10 140 Table 3—Hawaiian Goose4 Auwahi 5 0 5 Kawailoa 0 0 0 KWPII 30 +14 44 Pakini Nui NA +3 3 Total 35 +17 52 1 Take for the Hawaiian hoary bat was originally authorized for adults and juveniles separately. 2 A clarification issued in 2014 simplified the way in which indirect take (e.g., loss of dependent juveniles) associated with the mortality of a breeding adult was accounted for and tracked. Juveniles were converted to adult equivalencies using calculations based on life-history information included in the respective original HCPs, resulting in authorized take represented as a whole number as opposed to listing adults and juveniles separately. 3 Represents the currently authorized take plus the new requested take. 4 Take amounts for these species are summed or combined for adults, subadults, nestlings, or eggs.
    Auwahi Wind

    The Auwahi Wind project began commercial operation on December 28, 2012, and is located on Ulupalakua Ranch in east Maui, Hawai`i. Auwahi Wind Energy, LLC, was originally issued an ITP from the Service and an incidental take license (ITL) from the Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife on February 24 and February 9, 2012, respectively. The Auwahi Wind project consists of eight Siemens 3.0-megawatt (MW) wind turbines, augmented with an 11-MW battery storage system. Ancillary facilities include an underground electrical collection system, an operation and maintenance facility, an approximately 9-mile 34.5-kilovolt (kV) above-ground generator-tie line, and an interconnection substation.

    The original ITP and ITL, with 2014 amendments, authorized the following amounts of incidental take over the 25-year permit term: 21 Hawaiian hoary bats; 87 Hawaiian petrels; 5 Hawaiian geese; and Blackburn's sphinx moths (Manduca blackburni). The above levels of take were anticipated to result from project construction and operations, including collision with vehicles, generator tie-lines, substations, wind turbines and other project structures.

    Auwahi Wind Energy, LLC, is requesting a permit amendment to address a higher than anticipated amount of take of the Hawaiian hoary bat that has occurred during the first 5 years of operation. Auwahi Wind Energy, LLC, is requesting incidental take coverage for an additional estimated 176 Hawaiian hoary bats (for a total of 197 bats) over the 25-year permit term, which expires in 2037.

    Kawailoa Wind Power

    The Kawailoa Wind Power project is located approximately 4 miles from Haleiwa town, on the north shore of the island of O`ahu, Hawai`i, and began commercial operations in November of 2012. Kawailoa Wind Power, LLC, was issued an ITP and an ITL on December 8, 2011, and January 6, 2012, respectively. The Kawailoa Wind Power project consists of 30 2.3-MW wind turbine generators. Ancillary facilities include an underground electrical collection system, an operation and maintenance facility, and an approximately 4.0-mile above-ground transmission line.

    The original ITP and ITL authorized the following amounts of incidental take over a 20-year permit term: 60 Hawaiian hoary bats; 12 Hawaiian ducks (koloa maoli; Anas wyvilliana); 18 Hawaiian moorhen (`alae `ula; Gallinula galeata sandvicensis, also known as the Hawaiian gallinule); 18 Hawaiian coots (`alae kea; Fulica americana alai); 24 Hawaiian stilts (kukuluae`o; Himantopus mexicanus knudseni); and 15 Newell's shearwaters (`a`o; Puffinus auricularis newelli). The above levels of take were anticipated to result from project construction and operations, including collision with vehicles, generator tie-lines, substations, wind turbines, and other project structures.

    Kawailoa Wind Power, LLC, is requesting a permit amendment to address a higher than anticipated amount of take of the Hawaiian hoary bat that has occurred during the first 5