Federal Register Vol. 83, No.107,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 107 (June 4, 2018)

Page Range25545-25848
FR Document

83_FR_107
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 25666 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 25722 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 25545 - Great Outdoors Month, 2018PDF
83 FR 25723 - Sunshine Act Cancellation Notice-OPIC June 6, 2018 Public HearingPDF
83 FR 25642 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 25678 - Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 25676 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 25656 - Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Metrics in the U.S. for System and Subsystem PerformancePDF
83 FR 25720 - Distribution of 2016 Cable Royalty FundsPDF
83 FR 25658 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. From the Department of Energy Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures and Notice of Grant of Interim WaiverPDF
83 FR 25721 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25650 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
83 FR 25718 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Coke Oven Emissions StandardPDF
83 FR 25717 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of Controversion of Right to CompensationPDF
83 FR 25633 - Florida; Approval of Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration UnitsPDF
83 FR 25730 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Spain: 500 Years of Spanish Painting From the Museums of Madrid” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 25671 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25668 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25670 - Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 25685 - Indian Child Welfare Act; Designated Tribal Agents for Service of NoticePDF
83 FR 25664 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
83 FR 25561 - Special Local Regulation; Great Western Tube Float; Parker, AZPDF
83 FR 25734 - Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program CollectionsPDF
83 FR 25566 - Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Adler Planetarium, Chicago, ILPDF
83 FR 25683 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: CDBG Urban County Qualification/New York Towns Qualification/Requalification ProcessPDF
83 FR 25651 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25715 - Forged Steel Fittings From China, Italy, and Taiwan; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Anti-Dumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 25735 - Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 25568 - Safety Zone; Freedom Festival Fireworks, Lake Erie, Luna Pier, MIPDF
83 FR 25667 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 25666 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 25577 - Safety Zone; Thunder Over Toledo Fireworks, Maumee River, Toledo, OHPDF
83 FR 25649 - Record of Decision for the Final Portland Harbor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Restoration PlanPDF
83 FR 25645 - Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 25644 - Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
83 FR 25730 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; PHI Air Medical LLCPDF
83 FR 25732 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 25731 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 25647 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25649 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25651 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25652 - Fisheries of the Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Data Webinar for Caribbean Spiny LobsterPDF
83 FR 25650 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25549 - Thresholds for De Minimis Activity and Exemptions From Licensing Under the Animal Welfare ActPDF
83 FR 25655 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Stakeholder Representative Members of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation CommitteePDF
83 FR 25547 - Importation of Tree Tomatoes From Ecuador Into the Continental United StatesPDF
83 FR 25663 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
83 FR 25664 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 25733 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
83 FR 25654 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 25643 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other PopulationsPDF
83 FR 25581 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Action #1PDF
83 FR 25721 - Duke Energy Progress, Inc., H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
83 FR 25598 - Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Medical Image AnalyzersPDF
83 FR 25684 - International Wildlife Conservation Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 25575 - Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MDPDF
83 FR 25714 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory CommissionPDF
83 FR 25559 - Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 25676 - North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 25640 - Request for Applications for Veteran Farmer Streamlined Eligibility Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 25570 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo ZonePDF
83 FR 25723 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 25714 - Stainless Steel Flanges From ChinaPDF
83 FR 25679 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 25642 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 25725 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Applicability of the Floor Broker Management System and the Snapshot Functionality to Registered Options Traders and SpecialistsPDF
83 FR 25724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 25648 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
83 FR 25579 - Safety Zone; Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball; Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PAPDF
83 FR 25683 - Annual Indexing of Basic Statutory Mortgage Limits for Multifamily Housing ProgramsPDF
83 FR 25563 - Special Local Regulation; Gulfport Grand Prix, Boca Ciego Bay, Gulfport, FLPDF
83 FR 25558 - Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Greenwood, MSPDF
83 FR 25718 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of PaymentsPDF
83 FR 25617 - Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2PDF
83 FR 25716 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Cotton Dust StandardPDF
83 FR 25719 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Confined Spaces in Construction StandardPDF
83 FR 25776 - Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 25667 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 25653 - Procurement List; Proposed additionsPDF
83 FR 25653 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
83 FR 25566 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal), Indiantown, FLPDF
83 FR 25675 - Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 25604 - Air Plan Approval; SC; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
83 FR 25590 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25729 - Notification of the CAFTA-DR Environmental Affairs Council MeetingPDF
83 FR 25738 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting RegulationsPDF
83 FR 25635 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 25608 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Cleveland, PM2.5PDF
83 FR 25657 - Notice of Availability of Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, WashingtonPDF
83 FR 25595 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25587 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) AirplanesPDF
83 FR 25638 - Rescinding Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting (HSAR Case 2017-001)PDF
83 FR 25615 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Consumer Products and Architectural and Industrial Maintenance CoatingsPDF
83 FR 25583 - Payday Alternative LoansPDF
83 FR 25556 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF

Issue

83 107 Monday, June 4, 2018 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25668-25674 2018-11926 2018-11927 Meetings: Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Pursuing Safety in Diagnosis and Treatment at the Intersection of Design, Systems Engineering, and Health Services Research, 25670-25671 2018-11925 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Rural Housing Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Importation of Tree Tomatoes From Ecuador Into the Continental United States, 25547-25549 2018-11890 Thresholds for De Minimis Activity and Exemptions From Licensing Under the Animal Welfare Act, 25549-25555 2018-11892 Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25642-25643 2018-11948 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, 25643-25644 2018-11884 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Okeechobee Waterway, Indiantown, FL, 25566 2018-11829 Safety Zones: Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone, 25570-25574 2018-11872 Chicago Harbor, Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, 25566-25568 2018-11920 Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD, 25575-25577 2018-11877 Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball, Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA, 25579-25581 2018-11857 Freedom Festival Fireworks, Lake Erie, Luna Pier, MI, 25568-25570 2018-11912 Thunder Over Toledo Fireworks, Maumee River, Toledo, OH, 25577-25579 2018-11907 Special Local Regulations: Great Western Tube Float; Parker, AZ, 25561-25563 2018-11922 Gulfport Grand Prix, Boca Ciego Bay, Gulfport, FL, 25563-25565 2018-11853 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 25653-25654 2018-11830 2018-11831 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board NOTICES Distribution of 2016 Cable Royalty Funds, 25720-25721 2018-11938 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25654-25655 2018-11885
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, WA, 25657-25658 2018-11736 Petitions for Waivers: AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc., 25658-25663 2018-11937 Requests for Information: Marine and Hydrokinetic Metrics in the U.S. for System and Subsystem Performance, 25656-25657 2018-11941
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Stakeholder Representative Members of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee, 25655-25656 2018-11891 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 25776-25848 2018-11838 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming; Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standard, 25617-25632 2018-11846 Connecticut; Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Consumer Products and Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings, 25615-25617 2018-11596 Florida; Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 25633-25635 2018-11929 Ohio; Cleveland, PM2.5 Attainment Plan, 25608-25615 2018-11748 South Carolina; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 25604-25608 2018-11824 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site, 25635-25638 2018-11758 NOTICES Pesticide Product Registrations: New Uses, 25664-25665 2018-11923 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Applications: Veteran Farmer Streamlined Eligibility Pilot Program, 25640-25642 2018-11873 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 25556-25558 2018-11424 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Greenwood, MS, 25558-25559 2018-11851 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 25590-25598 2018-11700 2018-11822 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes, 25587-25590 2018-11699 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries PHI Air Medical, LLC, 25730-25731 2018-11902 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25666 2018-12090 2018-12091 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25666 2018-12040 2018-12095 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 25676-25682 2018-11869 2018-11942 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Hawaii, 25678 2018-11945 Major Disaster Declarations: North Carolina; Amendment No. 1, 25676 2018-11874 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 25663-25664 2018-11888 2018-11889 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25731-25733 2018-11899 2018-11900 2018-11901 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 25733-25734 2018-11886 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 25667 2018-11911 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 25666-25667 2018-11834 2018-11910 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Final Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations, 25738-25773 2018-11759 NOTICES Meetings: International Wildlife Conservation Council, 25684-25685 2018-11878 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Radiology Devices: Medical Image Analyzers, 25598-25604 2018-11880 NOTICES Guidance: Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials, 25675-25676 2018-11828 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Food and Drug Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

PROPOSED RULES Homeland Security Acquisition Regulations: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting; Rescission, 25638-25639 2018-11617
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: CDBG Urban County Qualification/New York Towns Qualification/Requalification Process, 25683-25684 2018-11919 Annual Indexing of Basic Statutory Mortgage Limits for Multifamily Housing Programs, 25683 2018-11854 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Child Welfare Act: Designated Tribal Agents for Service of Notice, 25685-25714 2018-11924 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG; Correction, 25559-25561 2018-11875 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 25645-25647 2018-11905 Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China, 25644 2018-11904 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Forged Steel Fittings From China, Italy, and Taiwan, 25715-25716 2018-11915 Stainless Steel Flanges From China, 25714-25715 2018-11870 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Coke Oven Emissions Standard, 25718-25719 2018-11932 Confined Spaces in Construction Standard, 25719-25720 2018-11844 Controversion of Right to Compensation, 25717-25718 2018-11931 Cotton Dust Standard, 25716-25717 2018-11845 Notice of Payments, 25718 2018-11847 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Payday Alternative Loans, 25583-25587 2018-11591 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25721 2018-11935 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Action No. 1, 25581-25582 2018-11883 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Takes of Anadromous Fish, 25648-25651 2018-11863 2018-11934 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Portland Harbor Restoration Plan, 25649-25650 2018-11906 Meetings: Fisheries of the Caribbean; Data Webinar for Caribbean Spiny Lobster, 25652-25653 2018-11895 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 25647-25649, 25651 2018-11894 2018-11896 2018-11897 2018-11898 New England Fishery Management Council, 25651-25652 2018-11918 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 25650 2018-11893 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 25714 2018-11876 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendments: Duke Energy Progress, Inc. H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 25721-25722 2018-11882 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25722-25723 2018-12083 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 25723 2018-12018 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 25723 2018-11871 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Great Outdoors Month (Proc. 9757), 25545-25546 2018-12033 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 25642 2018-11867 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., 25724-25725 2018-11865 Nasdaq PHLX LLC, 25725-25729 2018-11866 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Spain: 500 Years of Spanish Painting From the Museums of Madrid, 25730 2018-11928 Meetings: CAFTA-DR Environmental Affairs Council, 25729-25730 2018-11817 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Collections, 25734-25735 2018-11921
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Cooperative Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee, 25735 2018-11914 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 25738-25773 2018-11759 Part III Environmental Protection Agency, 25776-25848 2018-11838 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.

83 107 Monday, June 4, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0072] RIN 0579-AE23 Importation of Tree Tomatoes From Ecuador Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the fruit and vegetable regulations to allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the tree tomatoes must be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for importation in commercial consignments, registration and monitoring of places of production, field monitoring and pest control practices, trapping, and inspection for quarantine pests by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador. This action will allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

DATES:

Effective July 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

In response to a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) to analyze the plant pest risks associated with the importation of tree tomato from Ecuador into the continental United States. The PRA identified four pests of quarantine significance present in Ecuador that could follow the pathway of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States. They are:

Fruit Flies • South American fruit fly (Anastrepha fracterculus) • Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) Moth • Tomato fruit borer (Neoleucinodes elegantalis) Virus • Tamarillo mosaic virus

Based on the findings of the PRA, we prepared a risk management document (RMD) to determine whether phytosanitary measures exist that would address the quarantine plant pest risk. The RMD described the phytosanitary measures required by this rule and provides evidence of their efficacy in preventing the introduction of the identified quarantine pests. Those measures will be applied as part of a systems approach to phytosanitary security.

On June 21, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 28262-28266, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0072) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States under a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments, registration and monitoring of places of production, field monitoring and pest control practices, trapping, and inspection for quarantine pests by the NPPO of Ecuador.

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, including the PRA and RMD, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0072.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending August 21, 2017. We received five comments by that date, from private citizens and a State department of agriculture. Two commenters supported the action, while three opposed. The comments are discussed below.

One commenter noted that the PRA rated the fruit flies as high and the moth and virus as a medium for likelihood for introduction. The commenter stated that these pests have a wide host range, which include economically important hosts. Furthermore, the life stages and symptoms of these pests and disease could be difficult to detect during post-harvest and port-of-entry inspections. As such, the commenter recommended that shipments of tree tomato from Ecuador not be allowed into Florida.

We have determined, for the reasons described in the RMD, that the specified measures in the RMD will effectively mitigate the risks associated with the importation of tree tomato from Ecuador. Under the systems approach, biometric samples of tree tomato fruit must be inspected by the NPPO of Ecuador following any post-harvest processing and found free of N. elegantalis and Tamarillo mosaic virus. These inspections, in addition to other phytosanitary measures described in the RMD, will be sufficient to reduce the risk.

One commenter opposed the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador due to the risk of introduction of invasive species.

As a signatory of the World Trade Organization agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the United States is obligated to consider requests from foreign governments for access to the U.S. market. We have considered the risks associated with the action and, based on the PRA and RMD, we have determined that the mitigation measures are effective to protect animal and plant health within the United States.

The same commenter stated that we needed to consider the economic effects this action would have on U.S. tomato growers.

As mentioned in the economic analysis, tree tomatoes are not commercially grown in the United States. Therefore, we have determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on U.S. tomato producers.

One commenter stated that we cannot control the pesticides used by Ecuador on their products.

While the United States does not have direct control over pesticides that are used on food commodities in other countries such as tree tomatoes from Ecuador, there are regulations in the United States concerning the importation of food to ensure that commodities do not enter the United States containing illegal pesticide residues. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to establish, change, or cancel tolerances for food commodities through section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The EPA tolerance levels are enforced once the commodity enters the United States. Federal Government food inspectors are responsible for monitoring food commodities that enter the United States to confirm that tolerance levels are not exceeded and that residues of pesticide chemicals that are banned in the United States, like DDT, are not present on the commodities.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

Note:

In the proposed rule, the systems approach for tree tomato from Ecuador was designated as § 319.56-78; however, that section has since been utilized. Therefore, the systems approach will be added as § 319.56-83.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Tree tomatoes are not commercially grown in the United States. U.S. consumers will benefit from having Ecuador as a new source of fresh tree tomato fruit. Ecuador has approximately 40 tree tomato production sites, with a total growing area of 650 acres. They are served by a single packinghouse. In 2014 (most recent data available), Ecuador exported approximately 5.1 metric tons of fresh tree tomatoes to Germany, Canada, Spain, Holland, Italy, and Japan in more than 130 small shipments. Based on conversations with Ecuadorian officials, we expect that initially there will be about 13 shipments of tree tomatoes from Ecuador, with a total volume of about 0.5 metric tons.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows fresh tree tomato to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. State and local laws and regulations regarding tree tomato imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0464, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. Section 319.56-83 is added to read as follows:
§ 319.56-83 Tree tomatoes from Ecuador.

Fresh tree tomatoes (Solanum betaceum Cavanilles) may be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador only under the conditions of this systems approach described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the following quarantine pests: Anastrepha fraterculus, South American fruit fly; Ceratitis capitata, Mediterranean fruit fly; Neoleucinodes elegantalis, a moth; and the Tamarillo mosaic virus.

(a) General requirements—(1) Operational workplan. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of Ecuador will carry out to meet the requirements of this section. The operational workplan must be approved by APHIS and include and describe specific requirements as set forth in this section. APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach.

(2) Registered places of production. Tree tomatoes considered for export to the continental United States must be produced at places of production that are registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

(3) Registered packinghouses. Tree tomatoes must be packed for export to the continental United States in pest-exclusionary packinghouses that are registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.

(4) Recordkeeping. The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain all forms and documents related to export program activities in registered places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and provide them to APHIS upon request.

(5) Identification. The identity of each lot of tree tomatoes from Ecuador must be maintained throughout the export process, from the place of production until the tomatoes are released for entry into the continental United States. The means of identification that allows the lot to be traced back to the place of production in which it was produced, and the packinghouse in which it was packed, must be described in the operational workplan.

(6) Commercial consignments. Tree tomatoes from Ecuador may be imported in commercial consignments only.

(7) Safeguarding. Lots of tree tomatoes destined for export to the continental United States must be safeguarded during movement from registered places of production to registered packinghouses, and from registered packinghouses to arrival at the port of entry into the continental United States, as specified by the operational workplan.

(b) Places of production requirements. (1) Registered places of production of tree tomatoes destined for export to the continental United States must be determined by APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador to be free from A. fraterculus and C. capitata based on trapping conducted in accordance with the operational workplan. If the flies per trap per day exceed levels specified in the operational workplan, the place of production will be prohibited from exporting tree tomatoes to the continental United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the risk has been mitigated. The NPPO must keep records regarding the placement and monitoring of all traps, as well as records of all pest detections in these traps, for at least 1 year and provide the records to APHIS, upon request.

(2) Places of production must remove fallen tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan. Fallen fruit may not be included in field containers of fruit brought to the packinghouse to be packed for export.

(3) The NPPO of Ecuador must inspect fields at registered places of production at least once during the growing season for Tamarillo mosaic virus. Sites must be determined by the NPPO to be free of the virus as a result of these inspections.

(4) Starting 60 days before harvest and continuing throughout the shipping season, the NPPO of Ecuador must visit and inspect registered places of production monthly for signs of infestation. The NPPO of Ecuador must allow APHIS to monitor these inspections. The NPPO of Ecuador must also certify to APHIS that registered places of production have effective fruit fly trapping programs and control guidelines in place to reduce pest populations.

(5) If APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador determines that a registered place of production has failed to follow the requirements in this paragraph (b), the place of production will be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.

(c) Packinghouse requirements. (1) During the time registered packinghouses are in use for packing tree tomatoes for export to the continental United States, the packinghouse can only accept tree tomatoes that are from registered places of production and that are produced in accordance with this section.

(2) Tree tomatoes must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, within 24 hours of harvest. These safeguards must remain intact until the tree tomatoes arrive in the United States, or the consignment will not be allowed to enter the United States.

(3) All openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be covered by screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from entering. The packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the tree tomatoes are packed.

(d) Phytosanitary inspections. A biometric sample of tree tomato fruit jointly agreed upon by the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS must be inspected in Ecuador by the NPPO of Ecuador or officials authorized by the NPPO of Ecuador following post-harvest processing. The sample must be visually inspected for N. elegantalis and Tamarillo mosaic virus. A portion of the fruit must then be cut open and inspected for A. fraterculus and C. capitata.

(1) If N. elegantalis is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from import into the United States unless it is treated with an approved quarantine treatment monitored by APHIS.

(2) If Tamarillo mosaic virus is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation into the United States.

(3) If a single larva of A. fraterculus and C. capitata is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation to the United States and the place of production producing that fruit will be suspended from the export program until appropriate measures, as agreed upon by the NPPO of Ecuador and APHIS, have been taken.

(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of fresh tree tomato fruit from Ecuador must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, issued by the NPPO of Ecuador, that contains an additional declaration that the tomatoes were produced in accordance with the requirements of this section, and have been inspected and found free of A. fraterculus, C. capitata, N. elegantalis, and the Tamarillo mosaic virus.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0464)
Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11890 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3 [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0059] RIN 0579-AD99 Thresholds for De Minimis Activity and Exemptions From Licensing Under the Animal Welfare Act AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to implement amendments to the Act that broadened the scope of the exemptions from the licensing requirements for dealers and exhibitors. Specifically, we are broadening the licensing exemption for any person who maintains four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals and only sells the offspring of these animals for pets or exhibition to include additional types of pet animals and domesticated farm-type animals. In addition, we are adding a new licensing exemption for any person who maintains eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or domesticated farm-type animals for exhibition. These actions will allow the Agency to focus its limited resources on situations that pose a higher risk to animal welfare and public safety. Finally, we are making conforming changes to the definitions of dealer and exhibitor to reflect the amendments to the Act and making several miscellaneous changes to the regulations for consistency and to remove redundant and obsolete requirements.

DATES:

Effective June 4, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, DVM, Director, National Policy Staff, USDA-APHIS-Animal Care, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3748.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA, or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain warm-blooded animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has delegated authority for administering the AWA to the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. Regulations and standards established under the AWA are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below as the regulations).

The AWA and regulations seek to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain warm-blooded animals 1 used or intended for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. Dealers and exhibitors of such animals must obtain licenses and comply with AWA regulations and standards, and their facilities are inspected by APHIS for compliance, unless they are otherwise exempt from the licensing requirements.

1 Under the regulations, an animal is defined as “any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research; horses not used for research purposes; and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to, livestock or poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.”

On August 4, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 51386-51394, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0059) a proposal 2 to amend the regulations to conform with amendments to the Act that broadened the scope of the exemptions from the licensing requirements for dealers and exhibitors whose size of AWA-related business activities is determined by the Secretary to be de minimis. We also proposed other changes for consistency and to eliminate redundant and obsolete requirements.

2 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0059.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending November 2, 2016. We received 29 comments on the proposal during the comment period. They were from exhibitors, animal welfare organizations, biomedical research organizations, an organization representing zoos and aquariums, an animal trainer, and the general public. We reviewed each of the comments carefully. We respond below, by topic, to those comments that address specific provisions of the proposal.

Definitions

We proposed to amend the definitions of dealer and exhibitor in § 1.1 of the regulations to align them with the amendments to those definitions in the AWA.

“Exhibitor”

Under the AWA, an exhibitor is defined as “any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the Secretary.” The definition goes on to identify specific inclusions, such as circuses and zoos, and exclusions, such as livestock shows and purebred dog and cat shows, and fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences, as may be determined by the Secretary. In addition, the regulations list additional examples of included and excluded activities.

In 2013, an amendment 3 to the AWA added a new exclusion to the definition of exhibitor for owners of common, domesticated household pets who derive less than a substantial portion of income from a nonprimary source for exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the pet owner. We proposed to add this exclusion to the definition of exhibitor in the regulations for consistency with the amended Act. We also sought comment on whether to add an explanation of “substantial portion of income” to the regulations to make clear it would not include exhibitions that generate a minimal amount of money and do not constitute a main source of the person's income.

3https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s3666enr/pdf/BILLS-112s3666enr.pdf.

One commenter observed that the proposed rule removed animal acts, educational exhibits, field trials, and coursing events from the list of activities in the regulatory definition of exhibitor and disagreed with their removal.

The removal of these and other activities from the definition of exhibitor was inadvertent and they have been retained in this final rule.

One commenter stated that the meaning of “substantial portion of income” within the definition of exhibitor is unclear and that it should not be described as the main source of income. The commenter recommended that we define “substantial portion of income” to mean “a percentage of income, the loss of which would negatively affect the person's standard of living,” because a main source of income earned by exhibiting the animals (51 percent or higher) is too high of a percentage to ensure the welfare of animals exhibited by persons earning poverty-level wages. Another commenter similarly recommended that USDA more clearly define the term “substantial” as the proposed language in the definition provides insufficient guidance for regulated parties and law enforcement. The commenter suggested that USDA define “substantial portion of income” as more than 50 percent of the person's income.

We are making no changes in response to the commenters. As a practical matter, we anticipate that owners of common, domesticated household pets that fall under this particular exclusion will also be exempt under the licensing exemptions for exhibitors established in this final rule, which is broader in scope than this exclusion. However, if such an owner has questions, we encourage them to contact the appropriate Animal Care office 4 and we will assess the situation and make a determination at that time.

4https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/banner/contactus/sa_animal_welfare.

“Dealer”

Under the AWA, a dealer is defined as any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports (except as a carrier), buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of any animal whether alive or dead for research, teaching, exhibition, or use as a pet, as well as any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security or breeding purposes. This definition also lists certain exclusions, such as retail pet stores.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill) 5 amended this definition by removing an exclusion for any person who does not sell or negotiate the purchase or sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year. At the same time, the 2014 Farm Bill removed an exemption from licensing in § 2133 of the AWA for any person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs and cats on his own premises and sells such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility and replaced it with a broader exemption for any dealers and exhibitors whose size of AWA-related business activities is determined by the Secretary to be de minimis.

5https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2642enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr2642enr.pdf.

In the proposed rule, we intended to make the regulations consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill by removing the exemption from the definition of dealer for any person who does not sell or negotiate the sale or purchase of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats, during any calendar year. In addition, we proposed to remove a parallel exemption from licensing in § 2.1(a)(3)(ii) of the regulations and add in its place an exemption for any person whose size of AWA-related business activities is determined by APHIS to be de minimis in accordance with the regulations.

One commenter disagreed with the proposed change, stating that it will create a loophole for animal operations that are not in compliance with the AWA. As an example, the commenter stated that persons were buying three females and one male animal, breeding them in the absence of care standards, and selling the offspring cheaply to brokers. The commenter stated that these exceptions will create unfair competition by diminishing the ability of licensed breeders to compete for market share.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. The commenter appears to be making reference to a different provision, contained in § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) of the current regulations, that exempts from licensing any person that maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals and who sells, at wholesale, only their offspring, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition. The proposed changes to the $500 gross income exemption do not change the licensing exemptions for dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals. As we noted above, the AWA was amended to broaden exemptions from the licensing requirements for small-scale dealers and exhibitors, which allows APHIS to focus its limited resources on situations that pose a higher risk to animal welfare and public safety.

Another commenter asked if the removal of the $500 gross income exemption meant that APHIS would now be exempting persons exhibiting exotic animals from the licensing requirements.

The $500 gross income exemption only applies to persons selling or negotiating the sale or purchase of animals other than dogs, cats, and wild or exotic animals. It does not apply to the exhibition of exotic animals.

After reviewing these comments and the scope of the $500 gross income exemption, we are amending the definition of dealer in this final rule to conform with the amendment to the Act, but will retain and make no changes to the existing licensing exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(ii) for any person who sells or negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal except wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such animals during any calendar year and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This long-standing, de minimis licensing exemption applies to persons, such as certain small-scale pet animal resellers, who are not covered by any other licensing exemption and do not pose a high risk to animal welfare or public safety. Although removed as an exclusion from the definition of dealer, this licensing exemption continues to be authorized by § 2133 of the AWA.

Four Breeding Female Licensing Exemptions

The current regulations in § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) and (vii) exempt from licensing any person who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals and who sells only the offspring of those animals, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition. In the proposed rule, we proposed a “four breeding female” exemption for additional types and combinations of animals, specifically, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, chinchillas, cows, goats, pigs, and sheep.

One commenter stated that the proposed exemption is inconsistent with the exemptions currently in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (vii) of § 2.1. The commenter noted that the current exemptions apply to breeders of small exotic or wild species with four or fewer breeding females under the assumption that such breeders can adequately care for their animals. The commenter suggested replacing the list of animals in the proposed de minimis exemption with the list in current § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) so that small exotic or wild species will be included under the de minimis exemption. Another commenter expressed similar concerns about having three exemptions for dealers and recommended that we consolidate them.

We agree with the commenters' suggestions and are making conforming changes in this final rule. Specifically, we are combining the three exemptions (current § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) and (vii) and proposed § 2.1(a)(3)(ix)) into one exemption in revised paragraph § 2.1(a)(3)(iii). We have also harmonized the list of animals, grouped them into categories (pet animals, small exotic and wild mammals, and domesticated farm-type animals) and added additional examples of animals (such as llamas and alpacas) that fall under this exemption for clarity. “Domesticated farm-type animals” are animals that have historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States. This consolidated exemption continues to apply to any person, including, but not limited to, purebred dog and cat fanciers, who meet the criteria in revised paragraph § 2.1(a)(3)(iii), and applies to retail sales and wholesales alike. Finally, we made conforming edits to the definition of retail pet store. Specifically, we removed references to previous paragraph § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) because that provision has been consolidated in revised paragraph § 2.1(a)(3)(iii), which is authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill amendments. In addition, we updated references to “domestic ferrets” and “farm animals” to “domesticated ferrets” and “domesticated farm-type animals” for consistency with modern usage and the terminology used in this final rule.

A commenter stated that if the proposal is finalized, small breeders currently maintaining exotic animals under a USDA license may qualify as de minimis businesses and find themselves exempt from USDA licensing. The commenter expressed concern that persons operating such businesses will face confiscation of their animals in States that prohibit ownership of exotic animals by businesses lacking a USDA license and proposed a “grandfather clause” to allow de minimis businesses in such States to keep their exotic animals.

The four breeding female exemption for small exotic and wild mammals has been in place since 2004. Neither the proposed rule nor this final rule makes changes to it, other than to add additional examples of such animals and to combine the exemptions for retail sales and wholesales into one paragraph. We also note that States requiring a USDA license or that reduce requirements for persons with a USDA license primarily focus on potentially dangerous animals, not the types of small exotic and wild mammals that fall under this exemption, which are pocket pets such as chinchillas and jerboas being sold for use as pets or exhibition. Larger exotic or wild animals, such as lions, tigers, wolves, or bears, do not fall into this category.

Exhibitor Licensing Exemptions

In the proposed rule, we also proposed de minimis exemptions from the licensing requirements for exhibitors based on the size of their AWA-related business activity as measured by the total number of animals maintained, the type of exhibitor activity, and/or the duration of the exhibition. Specifically, for persons who exhibit four or fewer eligible animals in permanent facilities, we proposed a de minimis exemption under § 2.1(a)(3)(x). For seasonal exhibitors, we proposed an exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(xi) for any person who maintains a total of eight or fewer dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, chinchillas, cows, goats, pigs, and sheep, for seasonal exhibition and exhibits any or all of the animals for no more than 30 days per calendar year. We also proposed an exhibitor licensing exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(xii) for any person who maintains a total of four or fewer common, domesticated, non-dangerous household pet animals for infrequent or intermittent exhibition for no more than 30 days per calendar year, who derives less than a substantial portion of income from a nonprimary source for exhibiting such animals, whose animals reside exclusively at the residence of the owner, and who is not otherwise required to obtain a license.

One commenter stated that the proposal was unclear with respect to what animal species are eligible for the proposed de minimis exhibitor exemptions and asked us to clarify. With respect to the proposed de minimis exemption for infrequent or intermittent exhibitors, two commenters asked us to either define what species is meant by “common, domesticated, non-dangerous household pet animal” or provide a list of species that meet this criteria. One commenter stated that paragraph (a)(3)(xii) should reflect the de minimis exemptions in proposed paragraphs (a)(3)(ix) through (a)(3)(xi) that list “dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, chinchillas, cows, goats, pigs, and sheep.” The commenter stated that the proposed description is open to interpretation and could lead to confusion as to what animal species are eligible for the exemption.

In response to this comment, and consistent with our approach to the four breeding female exemption discussed above, we are harmonizing the lists of non-dangerous animals eligible for exemption and grouping them into categories (pet animals, small exotic and wild mammals, and domesticated farm-type animals). We are also adding more examples of animals that fall under this exhibitor exemption for clarity.

Two commenters disagreed with the proposed numeric thresholds, noting that seasonal exhibitors are allowed to work up to eight animals while infrequent or intermittent (mainly film and theatrical) exhibitors are only allowed to work four animals. One of these commenters stated that both types of exhibition require off-site housing and frequent transport, putting animals at greater potential risk regardless of the number exhibited, yet under § 2.1(a)(3)(xii) an infrequent or intermittent exhibitor would require a license with five to eight animals while seasonal exhibitors with the same number of animals exhibited would not require a license. Similarly, another commenter stated that regardless of whether animals are used for seasonal or infrequent exhibition, the potential impact on the animal's welfare is the same. For this reason, the commenter recommended that the seasonal exemption be limited to four or fewer animals.

Two other commenters disagreed with the limit of days we placed on the seasonal exhibit exemption and said that the duration should be longer. One such commenter stated that many spring and fall exhibits run between specific weekends and are often weather dependent, and stated that at least 6 to 8 weeks would be better for the seasonal de minimis exemption. On the other hand, one commenter stated that seasonal exhibitions should not have a duration of more than 10 days per year.

Another commenter stated that allowing infrequent or intermittent exhibitors up to 30 days a year to work their animals is far too high. The commenter, a professional pet trainer, was concerned that untrained pet owners would lack the knowledge necessary to keep their pets and other people safe on film sets and at other worksites. The commenter suggested that we limit the proposed exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(xii) to 1 or 2 days of exhibition per year, as any person working their animals for more days are likely generating a substantial amount of income while remaining exempt from licensing. The commenter said that a trainer can make $500 to $1,000 per day with an animal in a TV or film production, and that a pet working 30 days in a starring role can make a profit of tens of thousands of dollars. The commenter stated that anyone profiting by more than $100 per day from exhibiting an animal should be required to be licensed or work under the guidance of a licensed USDA trainer.

Finally, one commenter disagreed with our use of the term “infrequent exhibition.” The commenter asked who would monitor such exhibitors for compliance with the regulations and stated that allowing infrequent exhibitors to go unlicensed is not fair to licensed exhibitors who have to conduct recordkeeping and be inspected.

We have reconsidered this matter and agree with the commenters that the animals pose similar potential risks and will likely experience similar treatment and care, regardless of the duration or frequency of the exhibition. We have concluded that individuals and businesses exhibiting eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or domesticated farm-type animals have a de minimis size of business based on the number of animals maintained, capability of providing adequate care and treatment of such animals, and public oversight. Accordingly, we are revising § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) to establish a single exemption from the licensing requirements for persons who maintain a total of eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or domesticated farm-type animals for exhibition, and are not otherwise required to obtain a license. This de minimis threshold applies without regard to the frequency of exhibition and will allow the Agency to focus its limited resources on situations that pose a higher risk to animal welfare and public safety.

One commenter stated that the seasonal exhibition threshold for exemption should be raised from 30 to 45 days, noting that apple orchards, corn mazes, and Christmas tree farms usually display small numbers of farm animals and are open at least 45 days. The commenter recommended that if such facilities are only exhibiting farm animals and are only open seasonally for 30 to 45 days, they should not be regulated.

As noted in the proposed rule, the Act contains a number of exclusions for domesticated farm-type animals and agricultural practices. For example, the definition of animal excludes farm animals, such as, but not limited to, livestock or poultry used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. In addition, we wish to highlight that the definition of exhibitor also contains exclusions for organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in State and county fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, and other fairs and exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences as may be determined by the Secretary. Exhibitions of exclusively domesticated farm-type animals, exhibitions of traditional farming and agricultural practices, and exhibitions of art portraying traditional farming and agricultural settings, are accordingly exempt from the definition of exhibitor. Examples of exhibitions that may fall in this category include exhibition of exclusively domesticated farm-type animals (such as cows, goats, pigs, sheep, llamas, and alpacas), nativity scenes with a camel and domesticated farm-type animals displayed in a barn or other traditional farm-type setting, and traditional agricultural displays of working animals, such as reindeer pulling a sled or working on a farm. Exhibitions displaying other types of animals (such as lions, tigers, elephants, and bears) or animals other than exclusively farm-type animals in non-agricultural settings (such as camel rides for the public at a carnival), require licensure. Although the kinds of exhibits noted by the commenter may not all be exempt under the exhibitor licensing exemption, we wish to clarify that they may already be excluded from regulation pursuant to the definition of exhibitor.

Proposed Changes to § 3.28 and § 3.53

We proposed to remove §§ 3.28(b), 3.53(b), and 3.80(b)(1), which contain obsolete sheltering and minimum space requirements for hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and nonhuman primates, and to revise § 3.6(a)(2)(xii) to remove phase-in dates which are no longer needed regarding primary enclosures for dogs and cats. We explained in the proposed rule that removal of these requirements will remove any confusion with the current regulatory requirements and will have no impact on facilities and animal welfare.

Four commenters raised questions about our proposed removal of obsolete sheltering and minimum space requirements. One commenter asked if APHIS was certain that no entities were still maintaining animals under these requirements. Three of the commenters stated that some facilities may still be using primary enclosures acquired before August 15, 1990, and asserted that they would therefore still be subject to the requirements we are proposing to remove. These commenters asked that we remove these changes from the proposed rulemaking and reissue the changes in a separate rulemaking so that affected facilities receive adequate notice and opportunity to comment.

We have reconsidered these proposed changes in light of these comments and agree that some entities may still maintain hamsters, guinea pigs, and rabbits in enclosures acquired prior to August 15, 1990. Therefore, we will retain §§ 3.28(b) and 3.53(b) in the regulations and will consider removing them in a separate rulemaking. However, we are adopting the proposed revisions to §§ 3.6(a)(2)(xii) and 3.80(b)(1) in this final rule.

Other Comments

One commenter encouraged APHIS to investigate sanctuaries and private collections holding dangerous animals, as such facilities appear to be exhibiting animals for purposes that affect commerce for compensation in the absence of USDA oversight.

APHIS looks into any credible complaints or information it receives regarding individuals or businesses that may be engaging in regulated activity without the required license. To report a concern about an animal covered under the AWA, the public may submit a complaint online at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/complaint-form, or by contacting one of our Animal Care offices.6

6 See Footnote 4.

One commenter asked that we lift the stay imposed on the disaster contingency plan rulemaking as soon as possible.

As we noted in the proposed rule, the Secretary is reviewing the impact of the 2014 Farm Bill amendment on the contingency plan rulemaking and will decide whether to lift the stay once the review is concluded.

Another commenter stated concerns about how APHIS decides which current license holders meet the exemption threshold, citing inconsistent data in the APHIS database regarding the number of animals reported at the premises of licensees. Given these inconsistencies, the commenter asked whether APHIS can reliably determine who qualifies for the exemption and who does not.

We will continue to use the information submitted to APHIS by current license holders and the number of animals observed during the inspection process to determine if they meet the exemption thresholds. We consider our process for determining exemptions to be accurate and reliable.

We also received a number of general comments that were outside the scope of the rulemaking.

Finally, we are also making several nonsubstantive miscellaneous changes for consistency.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes discussed in this document.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

This rule relieves regulatory responsibilities for some currently licensed entities and reduces the cost of business for those entities. Those currently licensed exhibitors and dealers (including breeders meeting the definition of dealer) who are under the proposed de minimis thresholds will no longer be subject to licensing, animal identification, and recordkeeping requirements under the AWA. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866. Further, APHIS considers this rule to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771 as the action relieves regulatory responsibilities for some currently licensed entities and reduces the cost of business for those entities.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 2 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This rule relieves regulatory responsibilities for some currently licensed entities and reduces the cost of business for those entities. Those currently licensed exhibitors and dealers (including breeders meeting the definition of dealer) who are under the proposed de minimis thresholds will no longer be subject to licensing, animal identification, and recordkeeping requirements under the AWA.

The cost of a license for the smallest entities is between $40 and $85 annually. Identification tags for dogs and cats cost from $1.12 to $2.50 each. Other covered animals can be identified by a label attached to the primary enclosure containing a description of the animals in the enclosure at negligible cost. We estimate that the average currently licensed entity potentially affected by this rule spends about 10 hours annually to comply with the licensing paperwork and recordkeeping requirements. All of the currently licensed entities that will be considered de minimis under this rule benefit from reduced costs for licensing, identification, and recordkeeping.

We estimate that about 323 currently licensed exhibitors and breeders with a total of 1,106 animals operating at or below the thresholds for their particular AWA-related business activity will be considered de minimis and will no longer need to be licensed. We estimate that the cost savings for all these entities could total between about $62,000 and $68,500 annually. Our estimate of cost savings is based on agency experience and data from the APHIS Animal Care database on current licensees. We used information from the database on the type of animals and number of each type of animal at a current licensee, and their most recent inspection reports to determine the number of current licensees who could potentially be exempt based on the criteria established in this rule.

Based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We did not receive information concerning affected entities during the public comment period on the proposed rule that would alter this assessment. In the absence of apparent significant economic impacts, we have not identified steps that would minimize such impacts.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” 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.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. We did not receive any requests from tribes for consultation regarding the proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection requirements included in this final rule are approved under Office of Management and Budget control number 0579-0036.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3

Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 as follows:

PART 1—DEFINITION OF TERMS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

2. Section 1.1 is amended by revising the definitions of Dealer, Exhibitor, and Retail pet store to read as follows:
§ 1.1 Definitions.

Dealer means any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead (including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum, or other parts) for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or use as a pet; or any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security, or breeding purposes. This term does not include: A retail pet store, as defined in this section; and any retail outlet where dogs are sold for hunting, breeding, or security purposes.

Exhibitor means any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the Secretary. This term includes carnivals, circuses, animal acts, zoos, and educational exhibits, exhibiting such animals whether operated for profit or not. This term excludes retail pet stores, horse and dog races, an owner of a common, domesticated household pet who derives less than a substantial portion of income from a nonprimary source (as determined by the Secretary) for exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the pet owner, organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in State and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, field trials, coursing events, purebred dog and cat shows, and any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences, as may be determined by the Secretary.

Retail pet store means a place of business or residence at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase, and where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchillas, domesticated ferrets, domesticated farm-type animals, birds, and coldblooded species. Such definition excludes—

(1) Establishments or persons who deal in dogs used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;

(2) Establishments or persons exhibiting, selling, or offering to exhibit or sell any wild or exotic or other nonpet species of warmblooded animals (except birds), such as skunks, raccoons, nonhuman primates, squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes, etc.;

(3) Any establishment or person selling warmblooded animals (except birds, and laboratory rats and mice) for research or exhibition purposes;

(4) Any establishment wholesaling any animals (except birds, rats, and mice); and

(5) Any establishment exhibiting pet animals in a room that is separate from or adjacent to the retail pet store, or in an outside area, or anywhere off the retail pet store premises.

PART 2—REGULATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

4. Section 2.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii), (a)(3)(vii), and (c)(2) to read as follows:
§ 2.1 Requirements and application.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) Any person who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female pet animals as defined in part 1 of this subchapter, small exotic or wild mammals (such as hedgehogs, degus, spiny mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, jerboas, domesticated ferrets, chinchillas, and gerbils), and/or domesticated farm-type animals (such as cows, goats, pigs, sheep, llamas, and alpacas) and sells only the offspring of these animals, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This exemption does not extend to any person residing in a household that collectively maintains a total of more than four of these breeding female animals, regardless of ownership, or to any person maintaining such breeding female animals on premises on which more than four of these breeding female animals are maintained, or to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively maintain a total of more than four of these breeding female animals, regardless of ownership;

(vii) Any person who maintains a total of eight or fewer pet animals as defined in part 1 of this subchapter, small exotic or wild mammals (such as hedgehogs, degus, spiny mice, prairie dogs, flying squirrels, jerboas, domesticated ferrets, chinchillas, and gerbils), and/or domesticated farm-type animals (such as cows, goats, pigs, sheep, llamas, and alpacas) for exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license. This exemption does not extend to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively maintain a total of more than eight of these animals for exhibition, regardless of possession and/or ownership;

(c) * * *

(2) The applicant has paid the application fee of $10 and the annual license fee indicated in § 2.6 to the appropriate Animal Care regional office for an initial license.

PART 3—STANDARDS 5. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

6. Section 3.6 is amended: a. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(xii); b. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(i); c. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(ii) introductory text; d. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) as paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(1)(v) respectively; and e. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(1)(ii)(B), and (b)(1)(ii)(C) as paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(iii) respectively.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 3.6 Primary enclosures.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(xii) If the suspended floor of a primary enclosure is constructed of metal strands, the strands must either be greater than 1/8 of an inch in diameter (9 gauge) or coated with a material such as plastic or fiberglass. The suspended floor of any primary enclosure must be strong enough so that the floor does not sag or bend between the structural supports.

§ 3.80 [Amended]
7. Section 3.80 is amended: a. By removing paragraph (b)(1); b. By removing paragraph (b)(2) introductory text; c. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) as paragraphs (b)(1) through (4), respectively; d. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(1), footnote 4, by removing the words “paragraph (b)(2)(ii)” and adding the words “paragraph (b)(2)” in their place; e. In newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) by removing the words “paragraph (b)(2)(i)” and adding the words “paragraph (b)(1)” in their place; and f. In paragraph (c), by removing the words “paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)” and adding the words “paragraph (b)” in their place.
§ 3.127 [Amended]
8. In § 3.127, paragraph (d)(5) is amended by removing the words “farm animals” and adding the words “domesticated farm-type animals” in their place. Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11892 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0117; Product Identifier 2017-NM-104-AD; Amendment 39-19298; AD 2018-11-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-07, which applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2017-01-07 required a functional test or check of the main entry door closure and warning system, and applicable door closing inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD requires repetitive door closing inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during approach for landing, the main entry door detached from an airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 9, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 10, 2017 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, 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 referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0117.

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-2018-0117; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-01-07, Amendment 39-18774 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-07”). AD 2017-01-07 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8807). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that during approach for landing, the main entry door detached from the airplane. The NPRM proposed to continue to require a functional test or check of the main entry door closure and warning system, and applicable door closing inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive door closing inspections, adjustments, operational tests, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective crew/passenger doors. Such a condition could result in the in-flight opening or detachment of the crew/passenger door, which could result in loss of control of the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0123, dated July 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes; Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:

During approach for landing, at an altitude of 7,000 feet, a MF20-D5 lost the main entry door (MED). The flight crew maintained control of the aeroplane to land uneventfully. The results of the preliminary technical investigations concluded that the cause of this event could be either a broken cable, or an unlocked safety catch, associated with one or two deficient micro switches.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight opening and/or detachment of the MED, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane, and/or injury to persons on the ground.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault issued Service Bulletin (SB) F20-789, SB F200-133 and SB MF50-531, providing instructions for inspection/adjustment, and an operational test of the MED closure. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0007 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-01-07] to require a one-time accomplishment of a functional test/check of the MED closure/warning system. It also required [a general visual] inspection and operational test of the MED [including the control and latching mechanisms] and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, EASA determined that the inspection and operational test of the MED must be repeated to ensure continued safety.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2015-0007, which is superseded, and additionally requires repetitive inspections and operational tests of the MED.

Corrective actions include adjusting the telescopic rod bolts on the door until the clearance between the lower part of the door and the fuselage is within the specified tolerances. The corrective actions for the control and latching mechanisms include adjusting components and replacing damaged components (including pull latches, microswitches, pulleys, and cables). Signs of damage include cracks, corrosion, wear, and distortion. 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-2018-0117.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Dassault Aviation has issued the following service information.

• Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.

• Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.

• Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.

This service information describes procedures for inspections, adjustments, and operational tests of certain doors and corrective actions. 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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 392 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspections/adjustments/operational tests (retained actions from AD 2017-01-07) 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 $340 $133,280. Inspections/adjustments/operational tests (new actions) 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle 0 $340 per inspection cycle $133,280 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 AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-01-07, Amendment 39-18774 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017), and adding the following new AD: 2018-11-10 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19298; Docket No. FAA-2018-0117; Product Identifier 2017-NM-104-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 9, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-01-07, Amendment 39-18774 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017) (“AD 2017-01-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (1) Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON, FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes.

    (2) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes.

    (3) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes.

    (4) Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during approach for landing, the main entry door detached from an airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective crew/passenger doors. Such a condition could result in the in-flight opening or detachment of the crew/passenger door, which could result in loss of control of the airplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Main Entry/Passenger/Crew Door Closing Inspections, Adjustments, and Operational Tests and Corrective Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-01-07, with no changes. Within 330 flight hours or 13 months, whichever occurs first after February 10, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-01-07), unless already done: Do the applicable door closing inspections, adjustments, and operational tests, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) For Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.

    (2) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.

    (3) For Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes: Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.

    (h) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Main Entry/Passenger/Crew Door Closing Inspections, Adjustments, and Operational Tests and Corrective Actions

    Within 72 months after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 72 months, repeat the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, 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]

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

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-01-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0123, dated July 20, 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-2018-0117.

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

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on February 10, 2017 (82 FR 1595, January 6, 2017).

    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin F20-789, also referred to as 789, dated December 9, 2014.

    (ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F50-531, also referred to as 531, dated December 9, 2014.

    (iii) Dassault Service Bulletin F200-133, also referred to as 133, dated December 9, 2014.

    (4) 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.

    (5) 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.

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

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 21, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11424 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0994; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-21] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Greenwood, MS AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2018, amending Class D and Class E airspace at Greenwood, MS, by removing duplicative language added in the legal description of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface for Greenwood-Leflore Airport.

    DATES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 22840, May 17, 2018) for Doc. No. FAA-2017-0994, amending Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found duplicative language in the regulatory text of the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This action corrects the error by removing that part of the extra text that reads “That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of That That airspace”. The airspace description now reads “That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Greenwood-Leflore Airport and within 1.2 miles each side of the Sidon VORTAC 079° radial, extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 2 miles each side of the VORTAC.”

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of May 17, 2018 (83 FR 22840) FR No. 2018-10389, the amendment of Class E Airspace for Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS, is corrected as follows:

    § 71.1 [Amended] ASO MS E5 Greenwood, MS [Amended]

    On page 22842, column 1 lines 10, 11, and 12, remove the words

    “That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of That That airspace”.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 24, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11851 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 748 [Docket No. 170306234-8444-02] RIN 0694-AH37 Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG; Correction AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) publishes this final rule to make certain conforming changes based on the revisions to Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C350 on the Commerce Control List (CCL) contained in a final rule published on April 2, 2018. That final rule amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Implementation Meeting, and later adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure, and the recommendations made at the June 2017 AG Plenary Implementation Meeting and adopted by the AG Plenary. Among other changes, the April 2, 2018, final rule amended ECCN 1C350 by renumbering paragraphs .b through .d in alphabetical order. Following the publication of that rule, however, certain references to ECCN 1C350.c and 1C350.d in the description of items eligible under the validated end-user authorization (VEU) provisions of the EAR no longer identified the correct subparagraphs in ECCN 1C350 because the rule inadvertently failed to update the references to ECCN 1C350.c and 1C350.d in the description of eligible items for three of the validated end-users identified in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)) of the EAR. This final rule amends the VEU provisions to provide the correct references to eligible items in ECCN 1C350 for three validated end-users.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: 202-482-5991; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 2, 2018, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule titled “Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG” (83 FR 13849), which amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement the recommendations presented at the Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Implementation Meeting held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on February 15, 2017, and adopted pursuant to the AG silent approval procedure in April 2017, and the recommendations presented at the Implementation Meeting of the 2017 AG Plenary held in Paris, France, from June 26-30, 2017, and adopted by the AG Plenary. In addition, that final rule amended the EAR to reflect the addition of India as a participating country in the AG, as of January 19, 2018.

    The amendments to the April 2, 2018, final rule included revisions to Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C350, among which were the renumbering of certain items listed in paragraph .b, .c, or .d of this ECCN. However, that final rule inadvertently omitted updates to the references to ECCN 1C350.c and 1C350.d in the description of eligible items for three of the validated end-users identified in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)) of the EAR. Consequently, these descriptions no longer identified the correct subparagraphs for eligible items in ECCN 1C350. This final rule amends the references to ECCN 1C350 in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 to identify the correct subparagraphs for eligible items in ECCN 1C350, consistent with the amendments to ECCN 1C350 contained in the April 2, 2018, final rule.

    Specifically, this final rule amends Supplement No. 7 to part 748 to correctly identify which items in ECCN 1C350 are eligible for each of the following validated end-users: (1) The description of eligible ECCN 1C350 items in the entry for “CSMC Technologies Corporation” is revised to reference 1C350.c.4 (Phosphorus oxychloride, C.A.S. #10025-87-3) and 1C350.c.12 (Trimethyl phosphite, C.A.S. #121-45-9); (2) the description of eligible ECCN 1C350 items in the entry for “Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.” is revised to reference 1C350.c.4 and 1C350.d.10 (Hydrogen fluoride, C.A.S. #7664-39-3); and (3) the description of eligible ECCN 1C350 items in the entry for “Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation” is revised to reference 1C350.c.4 and 1C350.d.10. These conforming amendments do not change the scope of eligible items for any of the three validated end-users indicated above—they merely update the ECCN references in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 to correctly identify which ECCN 1C350 items are eligible for each of these validated end-users. Because this rule does not add or remove any validated end-users or revise the scope of eligible items, the citation for this rule is not indicated in the “Federal Register Citation” column of Supplement No. 7.

    Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017 (82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017)), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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 rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule contains a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System. This collection includes license applications, among other things, and carries a burden estimate of 29.6 minutes per manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 31,833 hours. This rule is not expected to result in any change in the burden hours associated with this collection. Specifically, this rule updates references to ECCN 1C350 in Supplement No. 7 to part 748 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU)) to reflect the amendments to this ECCN made by a final rule, titled “Implementation of the February 2017 Australia Group (AG) Intersessional Decisions and the June 2017 AG Plenary Understandings; Addition of India to the AG,” that was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2018 (83 FR 13849). These corrections to Supplement No. 7 to part 748 are not expected to change the number of license applications that will have to be submitted for items controlled under ECCN 1C350. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-7285; and to the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected]

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are waived for good cause because they are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). The provision of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring a 30-day delay in effectiveness is also waived for good cause. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). The changes contained in this rule are non-substantive technical corrections of a previously published rule that has already been exempted from notice and comment. This rule is necessary to ensure clarity in the regulations and accuracy regarding the scope of VEU-eligible items in Supplement No. 1 to part 748 of the EAR. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, it would result in further confusion caused by the incorrect cross-references to ECCN 1C350 contained in this Supplement. These changes are also essential to ensuring the accurate and complete implementation of the April 2, 2018, final rule.

    Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 748 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

    PART 748—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017).

    2. Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 (Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): List of Validated End-Users, Respective Items Eligible for Export, Reexport and Transfer, and Eligible Destinations), is amended by revising the validated end-user entries for “CSMC Technologies Corporation,” “Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.,” and “Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation,” listed under the country “China (People's Republic of),” to read as follows: Supplement No. 7 to Part 748—Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): List of Validated End-Users, Respective Items Eligible for Export, Reexport and Transfer, and Eligible Destinations Country Validated end-user Eligible items
  • (by ECCN)
  • Eligible destination Federal Register citation
    Nothing in this Supplement shall be deemed to supersede other provisions in the EAR, including but not limited to § 748.15(c). China (People's Republic of) *         *         *         *         *         *         * CSMC Technologies Corporation 1C350.c.4, 1C350.c.12, 2B230.a, 2B230.b, 2B350.f, 2B350.g, 2B350.h, 3B001.e, 3B001.h (except for multilayer masks with a phase shift layer designed to produce “space qualified” semiconductor devices), 3C002.a, and 3C004 CSMC Technologies Fab 1 Co., Ltd., 14 Liangxi Road, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214061, China
  • CSMC Technologies Fab 2 Co., Ltd., 8 Xinzhou Rd., Wuxi National New Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Wuxi, Jiangsu 214028, China
  • 76 FR 2802, 1/18/11. 76 FR 37634, 6/28/11. 77 FR 10953, 2/24/12. 78 FR 23472, 4/19/13. 78 FR 32981, 6/3/13.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd 1C350.c.4, 1C350.d.10, 2B006.a, 2B006.b.1.d, 2B230, 2B350.d.2, 2B350.g.3, 2B350.i.3, 3A233, 3B001.a.1, 3B001.b, 3B001.e, 3B001.f, 3B001.h, 3C002, 3C004, 3D002, and 3E001 (limited to “technology” for items classified under 3C002 and 3C004 and “technology” for use consistent with the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors process for items classified under ECCNs 3B001 and 3B002) Samsung China Semiconductor Co., Ltd., No. 1999, North Xiaohe Road, Xi'an, China 710119 78 FR 41291, 7/10/13. 78 FR 69535, 11/20/13. 79 FR 30713, 5/29/14. 80 FR 11863, 3/5/15. Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation 1C350.c.4, 1C350.d.10, 2B230, 2B350.d.2, 2B350.g.3, 2B350.i.4, 3B001.a.1, 3B001.b, 3B001.e, 3B001.f, 3B001.h, 3C002, 3C004, 5B002, and 5E002 (controlled by ECCNs 5A002, 5A004, or 5A992 that have been successfully reviewed under the encryption review process specified in Sections 740.17(b)(2) or 740.17(b)(3) of the EAR) Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation—HFab 2, 668 Guoshoujing Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Shanghai 201203
  • China Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation—HFab 1, 1188 Chuanqiao Road, Pudong, Shanghai 201206 China
  • Shanghai Huahong Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation—GFab1, 1399 Zuchongzhi Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Shanghai 201203 China
  • 78 FR 32981, 6/3/13.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: May 29, 2018. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11875 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0251] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Great Western Tube Float; Parker, AZ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the location of the special local regulation for the annual Great Western Tube Float event held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ. The change of the location for the special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action will restrict vessel traffic in certain waters of the Colorado River, from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 9, 2018, from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on June 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0251 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 Lieutenant Junior Grade Briana Biagas, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNM Local Notice to Mariners NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SMIB Safety Marine Information Broadcast TFR Temporary Final Rule 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. Due to the timing of the event, we are unable to issue a NPRM before the event is scheduled.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule is necessary for the safety of life during the event on these navigable waters. For the reasons above, including the timing of the event, it would be impracticable to delay this rule to provide a full 30 days notice.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Great Western Tube Float is an annual recurring event listed in Table 1, Item 9 of 33 CFR 100.1102, Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona). Special local regulations exist for the marine event to allow for special use of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ for this event.

    Section 100.1102 of Title 33 of the CFR lists the annual marine events and special local regulations on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona). The enforcement date and regulated location for this marine event are listed in Table 1, Item 9 of Section 100.1102. The location listed in the Table indicates that the marine event will occur on the navigable waters of the Colorado River from La Paz County Park to the BlueWater Resort and Casino, immediately before the Headgate Dam. However, due to a change of the location of this year's event from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park, a temporary rule is needed to reflect the actual location of this year's event.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations. The COTP San Diego is establishing a special local regulation for the waters of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, vessels and the navigable waters in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is temporarily suspending the regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 for Table 1, Item 9 of that Section and is inserting a temporary regulation as Table 1, Item 20 of that Section in order to reflect that the special local regulation will be effective and enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2018. This change is needed to accommodate the sponsor's event plan and ensure that adequate regulations are in place to protect the safety of vessels and individuals that may be present in the regulated area. No other portion of Table 1 of Section 100.1102 or other provisions in Section 100.1102 shall be affected by this regulation.

    Persons and vessels will be prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated waterway unless authorized by the COTP, or his designated representative, during the proposed times. Additionally, movement of all vessels within the regulated area and entry of all vessels into the regulated area will be restricted. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish information on the event in the weekly LNM.

    V. Regulatory Analysis

    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

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it.

    As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. The Coast Guard will publish a LNM that details the vessel restrictions of the regulated area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of the Colorado River, Parker, AZ, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2018.

    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: The special local regulation is limited in size and duration. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish event information on the internet in the weekly LNM marine information report. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

    C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this 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 establishment of marine event special local regulations on the navigable waters of the Colorado River. 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, and 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

    2. In § 100.1102, in Table 1 to § 100.1102, suspend item “9” and add item “20” to read as follows:
    § 100.1102 Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona). Table 1 to § 100.1102 *    *    *    *    * 20. Great Western Tube Float Sponsor City of Parker, AZ. Event Description River float. Date June 9, 2018. Location Parker, AZ. Regulated Area The navigable waters of the Colorado River from Buckskin Mountain State Park to La Paz County Park.
    Dated: May 11, 2018. J.R. Buzzella, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11922 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0421] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Gulfport Grand Prix, Boca Ciego Bay, Gulfport, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the waters of the Boca Ciego Bay in the vicinity of Gulfport, Florida, during the Gulfport Grand Prix High Speed Boat Race. Approximately 50 boats, 16 feet in length, traveling at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour are expected to participate. Additionally, it is anticipated that 20 spectator vessels will be present along the race course. The special local regulation is necessary to protect the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public on navigable waters of the United States during the event. The special local regulation will establish two regulated areas: (1) A race area where all non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg (COTP) or a designated representative; and (2) a buffer zone where designated representatives may control vessel traffic as deemed necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative based upon prevailing weather conditions.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective daily from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 1, 2018, through June 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0421 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 Marine Science Technician First Class Michael D. Shackleford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228-2191, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is establishing this special local regulation 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 it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the full event plans from the event sponsor nor the details of the event until late March 2018, leaving insufficient time to publish an NPRM. We must establish this special local regulation on June 1, 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 regulated area until after the date of race event, which would compromise public safety.

    For the reason discussed above, 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.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of the event participants, spectators, and the general public on the navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico during the Gulfport Grand Prix High Speed Boat Race event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation that will encompass certain waters of the Boca Ciega Bay in the vicinity of Gulfport, Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 1, 2018 through June 3, 2018. The special local regulation will establish two regulated areas: (1) A race area where all non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (2) a buffer zone where vessel traffic may be controlled as deemed necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative based upon prevailing weather conditions.

    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

    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 of the regulated areas. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the waters of the Boca Ciego Bay for seven hours daily over only three days. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM Channel 16 about the regulated areas as well as a Local Notice to Mariners, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas.

    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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this 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 would not result in such 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.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade enforced for seven hours daily over a period of three days that will prohibit non-participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, remaining within, or anchoring in the regulated area. This rule 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.T07-0421 to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-0421 Special Local Regulation; Gulfport Grand Prix, Boca de Ciego; Gulfport, FL.

    (a) Location. The following regulated areas are established as a special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (1) Race area. All waters of Boca de Ciego contained within the following points: 27°44′10″ N, 082°42′29″ W, thence to position 27°44′07″ N, 082°42′40″ W, thence to position 27°44′06″ N, 082°42′40″ W, thence to position 27°44′04″ N, 082°42′29″ W, thence to position 27°44′07″ N, 082°42′19″ W, thence to position 27°44′08″ N, 082°42′19″ W, thence back to the original position, 27°44′10″ N, 082°42′29″ W.

    (2) Buffer zone. All waters of Boca de Ciego encompassed within the following points: 27°44′10″ N, 082°42′47″ W, thence to position 27°44′01″ N, 082°42′44″ W, thence to position 27°44′01″ N, 082°42′14″ W, thence to position 27°44′15″ N, 082°42′14″ W.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the COTP St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the race area unless an authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

    (2) Vessel traffic within the buffer zone may be controlled by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative as deemed necessary by the COTP St. Petersburg or a designated representative based upon prevailing weather conditions.

    (3) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area contact the COTP St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506 or via VHF-FM radio Channel 16 to request authorization.

    (4) If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.

    (5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 1, 2018, through June 3, 2018.

    Holly L. Najarian, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Saint Petersburg.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11853 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0385] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal), Indiantown, FL 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 Seaboard System (CSX) Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal), mile 28.2, at Indiantown, FL. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the replacement of the main drive gears on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation during replacement operations.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from June 4, 2018 through 7 a.m. on June 12, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 7 a.m. on May 28, 2018, until June 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0385 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 LT Ruth Sadowitz, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Miami, Waterways Management Division, telephone 305-535-4307, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., on behalf of bridge owner, CSX Transportation, Inc, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation that governs the Seaboard System (CSX) Railroad Bridge across the Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal), mile 28.2, at Indiantown, FL. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the replacement of the main drive gears and rack segments which will improve the reliability of the bridge. The bridge is a swing bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed to navigation position of 7 feet at normal St. Lucie Canal stage of 14.5 feet.

    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.317(e). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will only open with a four (4) hour notice to the bridge tender at (772) 597-3822 from 7 a.m. on May 28, 2018 through 7 p.m. on June 3, 2018, and will remain in the closed to navigation position from 7 a.m. on June 4, 2018 through 7 a.m. on June 12, 2018. The Okeechobee Waterway (St. Lucie Canal) is predominantly used by a variety of vessels including U.S. government vessels, small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tugs and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. 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 also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that 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 29, 2018. Barry L. Dragon, Director, Bridge Branch, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11829 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0391] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Chicago Harbor, Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL near the Adler Planetarium on June 26, 2018. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and after a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 26, 2018, from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0391 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 about this rule, call or email LT John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email [email protected]

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

    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 and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard received the final details for this event with insufficient time to publish a NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display on June 26, 2018.

    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 legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone on June 26, 2018 from 9:20 p.m. until 9:50 p.m., for a barge based fireworks display, on Lake Michigan near the Adler Planetarium. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the barge based fireworks display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, falling and burning debris, and collisions among spectator vessels.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the public during the fireworks display on Lake Michigan. This safety zone will be enforced from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on June 26, 2018. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within a 420 foot radius from the approximate launch position at 41°52′12″ N, 087°36′23″ W. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    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 short duration of the rule.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for a barge based fireworks event in the Chicago Harbor, Chicago, IL near the Adler Planetarium on June 26, 2018. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    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.T09-0391 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0391 Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters of Lake Michigan near the Adler Planetarium in Chicago Harbor within a 420 foot radius from the approximate launch position at 41°52′12″ N, 087°36′23″ W.

    Effective and enforcement period. This rule will be effective from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on June 26, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 414-747-7182. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Thomas J. Stuhlreyer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11920 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0449] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Freedom Festival Fireworks, Lake Erie, Luna Pier, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of Luna Pier, MI. This Zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Lake Eire for the Freedom Festival Fireworks Display. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0449. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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. The event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks displays.

    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. Waiting for a 30-day effective period to run is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

    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 hazards associated with fireworks displays starting at 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 300 yard radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Lake Erie within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°48′34.826″ N, 083°26′21.894″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Lake Erie in Luna Pier, MI for a short period time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism

    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 120 minutes that will prohibit entry within a 300 yard radius from where a fireworks display will be conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0449 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0449 Safety Zone; Freedom Festival Fireworks, Lake Erie, Luna Pier, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All U.S. navigable waters of the Lake Erie within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°48′34.826″ N, 83°26′21.894″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The Captain of the Port Detroit, or a designated representative may suspend enforcement of the safety zone at any time.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.

    (3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so.

    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11912 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1112] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is amending its safety zones regulation for Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. This amendment updates 12 permanent safety zones and adds 12 new permanent safety zones. These amendments and additions are necessary to protect spectators, participants and vessels from the hazards associated with annual maritime events, including fireworks displays, boat races, and air shows.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-1112 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 LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

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

    On April 19, 2018, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this amendment to the CFR. During the comment period that ended May 21, 2018, we received no comments.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of this rule is to update the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.939 to ensure accuracy of times, dates, and dimensions for various triggering and marine events that are expected to be conducted within the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone throughout the year. The purpose of the rulemaking is also to ensure vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events. These specific hazards include obstructions in the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels maneuvering at a high speed within a channel; the explosive dangers involved in pyrotechnics and hazardous cargo; and flaming/falling debris into the water that may cause injuries.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 19, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule amends 12 permanent safety zones found within table 165.939 of 33 CFR 165.939. These 12 amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times.

    Additionally, this rule adds 12 new safety zones to table 165.939 within § 165.939 for annually reoccurring events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone. These 12 zones were approved and published in the Federal Register as temporary safety zones in 2017 and were added in order to protect the public from the safety hazards previously described. A list of specific changes and additions are available in the attachments within this Docket.

    The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that the safety zones in this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual marine or triggering events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo zone. Although this rule will be effective year-round, the safety zones in this rule will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after events that pose a hazard to the public and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    The Captain of the Port Buffalo will notify the public that the zones in this rule are or will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register, as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.

    All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    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 characteristics of the safety zones. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and are designed to minimize their impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zones have been designed to allow vessels to transit around them. In addition, the safety zones will have built in times to allow vessels to travel through when situations allow. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within each particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 the establishment of recurring annual safety zones. 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.

    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. Revise § 165.939 to read as follows:
    § 165.939 Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone.

    (a) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) These safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    (5) The enforcement dates and times for each of the safety zones listed in Table 165.939 are subject to change, but the duration of enforcement would remain the same or nearly the same total number of hours as stated in the table. In the event of a change, the Captain of the Port Buffalo will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register, as well as, issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officers designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into a safety zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within a safety zone, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    (2) Public vessel means a vessel that is owned, chartered, or operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.

    (3) Rain date refers to an alternate date and/or time in which the safety zone would be enforced in the event of inclement weather.

    (c) Suspension of enforcement. The Captain of the Port Buffalo may suspend enforcement of any of these zones earlier than listed in this section. Should the Captain of the Port suspend any of these zones earlier than the listed duration in this section, he or she may make the public aware of this suspension by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or on-scene notice by his or her designated representative.

    (d) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.

    (e) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his or her designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this section upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of safety or security.

    Table 165.939 Event Location 1 Enforcement date and time 2 (a) June Safety Zones (1) Festival of the Fish Vermillion, OH. All U.S. waters within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°25′45″ N and 082°21′54″ W, (NAD 83) The 3rd Saturday in June. (2) City of Syracuse Fireworks Celebration Syracuse, NY. All U.S. waters of Onondaga Lake within a 350 foot radius of land position 43°03′37.0″ N, 076°09′59.0″ W in Syracuse, NY The last weekend of June. (3) Rochester Harbor and Carousel Festival Rochester, NY. All U.S. waters of Lake Ontario within a 1,120 foot radius of land position 43°15′40.2″ N, 077°36′05.1″ W in Rochester, NY The 4th Monday of June. (4) Seneca River Days Baldwinsville, NY. All U.S. waters of the Seneca River within an 840 foot radius of land position 43°09′25.0″ N, 076°20′21.0″ W in Baldwinsville, NY The 2nd weekend of June. (5) Flagship Niagara Mariner's Ball Fireworks Erie, PA. All waters of Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA within a 350-foot radius from the launch site located at position 42°08′22.5″ N, 080°05′15.6″ W The 1st weekend in June. (6) Hope Chest Buffalo Niagara Dragon Boat Festival Buffalo, NY. All waters of the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′12.0″ N, 078°52′17.0″ W then Southeast to 42°52′03.0″ N, 078°52′12.0″ W then East to 42°52′03.0″ N, 078°52′10.0″ W then Northwest to 42°52′13.0″ N, 078°52′16.0″ W and then returning to the point of origin The 3rd weekend in June. (b) July Safety Zones (1) Cleveland Triathlon Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie at North Coast Harbor, Cleveland, OH within 100 feet of a line starting at position 41°30′34.6″ N and 081°41′51.3″ W extending in a straight line to the East Basin Breakwall at position 41°30′51.8″ N and 081°42′08.5″ W The 4th or 5th Sunday in July. (2) Roverfest Fireworks Display Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH within a 280 foot radius from position 41°30′34.23″ N and 081°08′55.73″ W The 2nd or 3rd weekend in July. (3) High Speed Boat Races Fairport, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie, off of Headlands Beach State Park, Fairport, OH inside an area starting on shore at position 41°44′33″ N, 081°19′14″ W extending NW in a straight line to position 41°45′00″ N, 081°19′35″ W, then NE in a straight line to position 41°45′59″ N, 081°17′30″ W, and SE back to the shore at position 41°45′43″ N, 081°17′08″ W The 3rd weekend in July. (4) Downtown Cleveland Alliance July 4th Fireworks Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor within a 1,000-foot radius of land position 41°30′10″ N, 081°42′36″ W (NAD 83) at Dock 20 On or around the 4th of July. (5) Mentor Harbor Yacht Club Fireworks Mentor, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie and Mentor Harbor within a 700 foot radius of land position 41°43′36″ N, 081°21′09″ W On or around the 4th of July. (6) Parade of Lights Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters within 25 feet of the vessels participating in the Cleveland Parade of Lights in the Cuyahoga River. The safety zone will move with participating vessels as they transit from the mouth of the Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of position 41°29′59″ N, 081°43′31″ W, to Merwin's Wharf in the vicinity of 41°29′23″ N, 081°42′16″ W, and returning to the mouth of the Old River at 41°29′55″ N, 081°42′18″ W The 3rd or 4th weekend in July. (7) Lorain Independence Day Celebration Lorain, OH. All U.S. waters within a 700 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°28′35.42″ N and 082°10′51.28″ W On or around the 4th of July. (8) Conneaut Festival Conneaut, OH. All U.S. waters within a 570 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°58′00.43″ N and 080°33′34.93″ W On or around the 4th of July. (9) Fairport Harbor Mardi Gras Fairport, OH. All U.S. waters within a 275 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°45′29.55″ N and 081°16′19.97″ W On or around the 4th of July. (10) Sheffield Lake Community Days Sheffield Lake, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie and Sheffield Lake Boat ramp within a 350 foot radius of land position 41°29′27.65″ N, 082°6′47.71″ W The 2nd weekend in July. (11) Bay Village Independence Day Celebration Bay Village, OH. All U.S. waters within a 560 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°29′23.9″ N and 081°55′44.5″ W On or around the 4th of July. (12) Lake Erie Open Water Swim Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie, south of a line drawn between positions 41°29′30″ N, 081°44′21″ W and 41°29′21″ N, 081°45′04″ W to the shore The 2nd or 3rd weekend in July. (13) Boldt Castle 4th of July Fireworks Heart Island, NY. All U.S. waters of the Saint Lawrence River within a 1,120 foot radius of land position 44°20′38.5″ N, 075°55′19.1″ W at Heart Island, NY On or around the 4th of July. (14) Clayton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Calumet Island, NY. All U.S. waters of the Saint Lawrence River within an 840 foot radius of land position 44°15′04.0″ N, 076°05′40″ W at Calumet Island, NY On or around the 4th of July. (15) French Festival Fireworks Cape Vincent, NY. All U.S. waters of the Saint Lawrence River within an 840 foot radius of land position 44°07′54.6.0″ N, 076°20′01.3″ W in Cape Vincent, NY The 2nd weekend of July. (16) Lyme Community Days Chaumont, NY. All U.S. waters of Chaumont Bay within a 560 foot radius of land position 44°04′06.3″ N, 076°08′56.8″ W in Chaumont, NY The 4th weekend of July. (17) Village Fireworks Sackets Harbor, NY. All U.S. waters of Black River Bay within an 840 foot radius of land position 43°56′51.9″ N, 076°07′46.9″ W in Sackets Harbor, NY On or around the 4th of July. (18) Can-Am Festival Sackets Harbor, NY. All U.S. waters of Black River Bay within a 1,120 foot radius of land position 43°57′15.9″ N, 076°06′39.2″ W in Sackets Harbor, NY The 3rd weekend of July. (19) Brewerton Fireworks Brewerton, NY. All U.S. waters of Lake Oneida within an 840 foot radius of the barge at position 43°14′16.4″ N, 076°08′03.6″ W in Brewerton, NY On or around the 4th of July. (20) Celebrate Baldwinsville Fireworks Baldwinsville, NY. All U.S. waters of the Seneca River within a 700 foot radius of land position 43°09′24.9″ N, 076°20′18.9″ W in Baldwinsville, NY The 1st weekend of July. (21) Island Festival Fireworks Baldwinsville, NY. All U.S. waters of the Seneca River within a 1,120 foot radius of land position 43°09′22.0″ N, 076°20′15.0″ W in Baldwinsville, NY The 1st weekend of July. (22) Village Fireworks Sodus Point, NY. All U.S. waters of Sodus Bay within a 1,120 foot radius of land position 43°16′28.7″ N, 076°58′27.5″ W in Sodus Point, NY On or around the 4th of July. (23) A Salute to our Heroes Hamlin Beach State Park, NY. All U.S. waters of Lake Ontario within a 560 foot radius of land position 43°21′51.9″ N, 077°56′59.6″ W in Hamlin, NY The 1st weekend in July. (24) Olcott Fireworks Olcott, NY. All U.S. waters of Lake Ontario within a 1,120 foot radius of land position 43°20′23.6″ N, 078°43′09.5″ W in Olcott, NY On or around the 4th of July. (25) North Tonawanda Fireworks North Tonawanda, NY. All U.S. waters of the East Niagara River within a 1,400 foot radius of land position 43°01′39.6″ N, 078°53′07.5″ W in North Tonawanda, NY On or around the 4th of July. (26) Tonawanda's Canal Fest Fireworks Tonawanda, NY. All U.S. waters of the East Niagara River within a 210 foot radius of land position 43°01′17.8″ N, 078°52′40.9″ W in Tonawanda, NY The 4th Sunday of July. (27) Tom Graves Memorial Fireworks Port Bay, NY. All waters of Port Bay, NY, within a 840 foot radius of the barge located in position 43°17′52.4″ N, 076°49′55.7″ W in Port Bay, NY On or around the 3rd of July. (28) Oswego Harborfest, Oswego, NY Oswego, NY. All waters of Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY contained within a 700 foot radius of position 43°28′06.9″ N, 076°31′08.1″ W along with a 350 foot radius of the breakwall between positions 43°27′53.0″ N, 076°31′25.3″ W then Northeast to 43°27′58.6″ N, 076°31′12.1″ W The last week of July. (29) Oswego Independence Day Celebration Fireworks Oswego, NY. All waters of Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY within a 490-foot radius from the launch site located at position 43°27′55.8″ N, 076°30′59.0″ W On or around the 4th of July. (c) August Safety Zones (1) Whiskey Island Paddlefest Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie; Cleveland Harbor, from 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W to 41°30′4.4″ N and 081°42′44.5″ W to 41°30′17.3″ N and 081°43′0.6″ W to 41°30′9.4″ N and 081°43′2.0″ W to 41°29′54.9″ N and 081°43′34.4″ W to 41°30′0.1″ N and 081°43′3.1″ W and back to 41°29′59.5″ N and 081°42′59.3″ W (NAD 83) The 3rd or 4th weekend in August. (2) D-Day Conneaut Conneaut, OH. All U.S. waters of Conneaut Township Park, Lake Erie, within an area starting at 41°57.71′ N, 080°34.18′ W, to 41°58.36′ N, 080°34.17′ W, then to 41°58.53′ N, 080°33.55′ W, to 41°58.03′ N, 080°33.72′ W (NAD 83), and returning to the point of origin The 3rd weekend in August. (3) Celebrate Erie Fireworks Erie, PA. All U.S. waters of Presque Isle Bay within an 800 foot radius of land position 42°08′19.0″ N, 080°05′29.0″ W in Erie, PA The 3rd weekend of August. (4) Thunder on the Niagara Hydroplane Boat Races North Tonawanda, NY. All U.S. waters of the Niagara River near the North Grand Island Bridge, encompassed by a line starting at 43°03′32.9″ N, 078°54′46.9″ W to 43°03′14.6″ N, 078°55′16.0″ W then to 43°02′39.7″ N, 078°54′13.1″ W then to 43°02′59.9″ N, 078°53′42.0″ W and returning to the point of origin The 2nd weekend of August. (d) September Safety Zones (1) Madison Light Up the Park Madison Township, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie, within a 210 ft radius of position 41°50′17″ N and 081°02′51″ W (NAD 83) The 1st weekend in September. (2) Cleveland National Airshow Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor (near Burke Lakefront Airport) from position 41°30′20″ N and 081°42′20″ W to 41°30′50″ N and 081°42′49″ W, to 41°32′09″ N and 081°39′49″ W, to 41°31′53″ N and 081°39′24″ W, then return to the original position (NAD 83) The Wednesday before Labor Day through Labor Day. (3) Head of the Cuyahoga Cleveland, OH. All U.S. waters of the Cuyahoga River, between a line drawn perpendicular to the river banks from position 41°29′55″ N, 081°42′23″ W (NAD 83) just past the Detroit-Superior Viaduct bridge at MM 1.42 of the Cuyahoga River south to a line drawn perpendicular to the river banks at position 41°28′32″ N, 081°40′16″ W (NAD 83) just south of the Interstate 490 bridge at MM 4.79 of the Cuyahoga River The 3rd weekend in September. 1 All coordinates listed in Table 165.929 reference Datum NAD 1983. 2 As noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the enforcement dates and times for each of the listed safety zones are subject to change, and will be published in a Notice of Enforcement prior to the event. Dated: May 29, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11872 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0157] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Severn River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the Severn River at Sherwood Forest, MD, during a fireworks display on July 3, 2018 (with alternate date of July 6, 2018). This action will prohibit persons and vessels from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, through 10 p.m. on July 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0157 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On January 16, 2018, the Sherwood Forest Club, Inc. of Sherwood Forest, MD, notified the Coast Guard that from 9:20 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. on July 3, 2018, it will be conducting a fireworks display launched from the end of the Sherwood Forest Club main pier, located adjacent to the Severn River, approximately 200 yards east of Brewer Pond in Sherwood Forest, MD. In response, on April 4, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD” (83 FR 14384). There we stated why we were issuing the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 4, 2018, we received 2 comments.

    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 Baltimore (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in the July 3, 2018, display will be a safety concern for anyone in the Severn River near the fireworks discharge site. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published April 4, 2018. Both comments provided support of this rulemaking. There are no substantive changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Severn River, within 150 yards of a fireworks discharge site located at the end of Sherwood Forest Club main pier in approximate position latitude 39°01′54.0″ N, longitude 076°32′41.8″ W, located at Sherwood Forest, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:20 p.m. fireworks display. While the zone is being enforced, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To request permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region and or designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed. If permission is granted to enter the safety zone, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or designated representative and proceed as directed while within the zone.

    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 of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of the Severn River for 2 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16 to provide information about the safety zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that would prohibit vessel movement within a portion of the Severn River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T05-0157 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0157 Safety Zone for Fireworks Display; Severn River, Sherwood Forest, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Severn River, within 150 yards of a fireworks discharge site located at the end of Sherwood Forest Club main pier in approximate position latitude 39°01′54.0″ N, longitude 076°32′41.8″ W, located at Sherwood Forest, MD. All coordinates refer to datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 6, 2018.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Joseph B. Loring, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11877 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0469] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Thunder Over Toledo Fireworks, Maumee River, Toledo, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone on the Maumee River in the vicinity of Toledo, Ohio. This Zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Maumee River for the Thunder over Toledo Fireworks Display. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective from 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018 until 10:30 p.m. on July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0469. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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. The event sponsor notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks displays.

    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. Waiting for a 30-day effective period to run is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

    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 hazards associated with fireworks displays starting after 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within an 800 foot radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018 with a rain date of July 5, 2018 from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River within an 800 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°38′44.5″ N, 083°31′50.6″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs’ ” (February 2, 2017).

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Maumee River in Toledo, OH for a 90 minute period of time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism

    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 90 minutes that will prohibit entry within an 800 foot radius from where a fireworks display will be conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0469 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0469 Safety Zone; Thunder over Toledo Fireworks, Maumee River, Toledo, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River within an 800 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°38′44.5″ N, 083°31′50.6″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018 with a rain date of July 5, 2018 from 9 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The Captain of the Port Detroit, or a designated representative may suspend enforcement of the safety zone at any time.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.

    (3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so.

    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11907 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0518] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball; Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 300-foot radius of the launch site located at Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Presque Isle Bay during the Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 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-2018-0518 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 LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    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 the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

    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 Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on June 2, 2018, from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA contained within 300-foot radius of: 42°08′22.5″ N, 080°05′15.6″ W.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    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 conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0518 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0518 Safety Zone; Flagship Niagara's Mariners Ball; Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA contained within a 300-foot radius of: 42°08′22.5″ N, 080°05′15.6″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on June 2, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11857 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 161222999-7413-01] RIN 0648-XG222 Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West Coast Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Action #1 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Modification of fishing seasons.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces one inseason action in the ocean salmon fisheries. This inseason action modified the commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the area from Cape Falcon, OR, to Pigeon Point, CA.

    DATES:

    The effective date for the inseason action is set out in this document under the heading Inseason Action.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peggy Mundy at 206-526-4323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In the 2017 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (82 FR 19630, April 28, 2017), NMFS announced management measures for the commercial and recreational fisheries in the area from the U.S./Canada border to the U.S./Mexico border, beginning May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018. NMFS is authorized to implement inseason management actions to modify fishing seasons and quotas as necessary to provide fishing opportunity while meeting management objectives for the affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Inseason actions in the salmon fishery may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 660.409(a)—Fixed inseason management provisions) or upon consultation with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the appropriate State Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible inseason management provisions). The state management agencies that participated in the consultations described in this document were: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

    Management of the salmon fisheries is generally divided into two geographic areas: North of Cape Falcon (U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, OR) and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico border). The inseason action reported in this document affected fisheries south of Cape Falcon.

    Inseason Action Inseason Action #1

    Description of action: Inseason action #1 cancelled specific commercial and recreational ocean salmon fisheries south of Cape Falcon, OR, that were previously scheduled to open in March and April 2018 (82 FR 19630, April 28, 2017). The fisheries that were cancelled were:

    —Commercial fishery from Cape Falcon, OR, to Florence South Jetty, OR, previously scheduled to open March 15, 2018; —Commercial fishery from Florence South Jetty, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR, previously scheduled to open March 15, 2018; —Commercial fishery from Humbug Mountain, OR, to the Oregon/California border (Oregon Klamath Management Zone), previously scheduled to open March 15, 2018; —Commercial fishery from Horse Mountain, CA, to Point Arena, CA, previously scheduled to open April 16-30, 2018; —Recreational fishery from Horse Mountain, CA, to Point Arena, CA, previously scheduled to open April 7, 2018; and —Recreational fishery from Point Arena, CA, to Pigeon Point, CA, previously scheduled to open April 7, 2018.

    Effective dates: Inseason action #1 took effect on March 13, 2018, and remained in effect through April 30, 2018.

    Reason and authorization for the action: The purpose of this action was to limit fishery impacts on Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon (KRFC) and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon (SRFC). Both stocks failed to achieve their conservation objectives in 2017 and currently meet the status determination criteria identified in the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan for being overfished. Therefore, the states of Oregon and California recommended cancelling the fisheries described above. The West Coast Regional Administrator (RA) considered the spawning escapement and abundance history for KRFC and SRFC, the stocks' 2018 abundance forecasts, and projected fishery impacts on these stocks in 2018, and determined that this inseason action was necessary to meet conservation and management objectives for these stocks. Inseason actions to modify quotas or fishing seasons are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i).

    Consultation date and participants: Consultation on inseason action #1 occurred on March 13, 2018. Representatives from NMFS, ODFW, CDFW, and the Council participated in this consultation.

    All other restrictions and regulations remain in effect as announced for the 2017 ocean salmon fisheries and 2018 salmon fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2018 (82 FR 19631, April 28, 2017) and as modified by prior inseason actions.

    The RA determined that the best available information indicated that Chinook salmon abundance forecasts and expected fishery effort in 2018 supported the above inseason action recommended by the states of Oregon and California. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone consistent with these federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice of the described regulatory action was given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline numbers 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.

    Classification

    NOAA's Assistant Administrator (AA) for NMFS, finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (82 FR 19631, April 28, 2017), the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP), and regulations implementing the FMP, 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time Chinook salmon catch and effort projections and abundance forecasts were developed and fisheries impacts were calculated, and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information, ensuring that conservation objectives and limits for impacts to salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act are not exceeded. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a delay in effectiveness of this action would allow fishing at levels inconsistent with the goals of the FMP and the current management measures.

    This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11883 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 107 Monday, June 4, 2018 Proposed Rules NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 701 RIN 3133-AE84 Payday Alternative Loans AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board (the Board) is proposing to amend the NCUA's general lending rule to provide federal credit unions (FCUs) with an additional option to offer payday alternative loans (PALs). This proposal would not replace the current PALs rule (PALs I). Rather, it would be an alternative option, with different terms and conditions, for FCUs to offer PALs to their members. Specifically, this proposal (PALs II) would differ from PALs I by modifying the minimum and maximum amount of the loans, modifying the number of loans a member can receive in a rolling six-month period, eliminating the minimum membership requirement, and increasing the maximum maturity for these loans. The Board is proposing to incorporate all other requirements of PALs I into PALs II. The Board is also soliciting comments from interested stakeholders on the possibility of creating a third PALs loan program (PALs III), which could include different fee structures, loan features, maturities, and loan amounts.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

    NCUA Website: http://www.ncua.gov/news/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name] Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (PALs II)” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    Public inspection: All public comments are available on the agency's website at http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/comments as submitted, except as may not be possible for technical reasons. Public comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Paper copies of comments may be inspected in the NCUA's law library, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6540 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Martha Ninichuk, Director, Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion; Matthew Biliouris, Director, Office of Consumer Financial Protection; or Justin M. Anderson, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone: (703) 518-1581 (Ms. Ninichuk), (703) 518-1140 (Mr. Biliouris), or (703) 518-6556 (Mr. Anderson).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. PALs II III. Request for Comment—Additional Alternatives IV. Regulatory Procedures I. Background A. The PALs Rule and Payday Lending Industry

    On September 16, 2010, the Board amended its general lending rule to enable FCUs to offer PALs loans as an alternative to predatory payday loans.1 The Board intended to provide a regulatory framework so FCUs could be a viable alternative to high-cost payday lenders. The final rule permitted FCUs to charge a higher rate of interest for this type of loan if FCUs met certain conditions.

    1 75 FR 58285 (Sept. 24, 2010). At the time, these loans were referred to as short-term, small amount loans.

    The term “payday loan” generally refers to a short-term loan with a relatively small principal amount that is intended to cover a borrower's expenses until his or her next payday, when the loan is to be repaid in full.2 Historically, these loans often have been made by lenders who charge high fees and sometimes engage in predatory lending practices. While some payday loan borrowers use these loans sparingly, many other borrowers find themselves in cycles where their loans “roll over” repeatedly, incurring even higher fees. Often, these borrowers are unable to break free from an unhealthy dependence on payday loans. While data on payday lending is incomplete, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) estimates that in 2015 the revenue for the traditional payday lending industry was $3.6 billion and loan volume was approximately $23.6 billion in new loans per year.3

    2 NCUA Letter to Federal Credit Unions, 09-FCU-05 (July 2009).

    3 81 FR 47863, 47870 (July 22, 2016).

    B. PALs I

    PALs I's current regulatory framework permits an FCU to charge an interest rate for PALs loans that is 1000 basis points above the general interest rate set by the Board for non-PALs loans, provided the FCU is making a closed-end loan 4 with the following conditions:

    4 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(10).

    (1) The principal of the loan is not less than $200 or more than $1000;

    (2) The loan has a minimum maturity term of one month and a maximum maturity term of six months;

    (3) The FCU does not make more than three PALs loans in any rolling six-month period to any one borrower and makes no more than one PALs loan at a time to a borrower;

    (4) The FCU must not roll over any PALs loan. The prohibition against roll-overs, however, does not apply to an extension of the loan term within the maximum loan term permitted by the rule, provided the FCU does not charge any additional fees or extend any new credit.

    (5) The FCU fully amortizes the loan;

    (6) The FCU sets a minimum length of membership requirement of at least one month;

    (7) The FCU charges an application fee to all members applying for a new loan that reflects the actual costs associated with processing the application, but in no case may the application fee exceed $20; and

    (8) The FCU includes, in its written lending policies, a limit on the aggregate dollar amount of loans made under § 701.21(c)(7)(iii) of a maximum of 20% of net worth and implements appropriate underwriting guidelines to minimize risk; for example, requiring a borrower to verify employment by producing at least two recent pay stubs.5

    5 12 CFR 701.21(c)(7)(iii).

    PALs I also includes a best practices section, which discusses topics to help ensure the product remains viable for the FCU and responsible for the borrower.6 The best practices section provides an FCU with guidance on implementing a PALs program, including: Program features, underwriting, and risk avoidance.

    6Id. at § 701.21(c)(7(iii)(B).

    C. 2012 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)

    In the 2010 PALs I rulemaking, the Board indicated that, after one year, it would review the PALs loan data collected on the 5300 call reports and reevaluate the requirements of the rule.7 After conducting that review, the Board, at its September 2012 meeting, issued an ANPR seeking comments on specific aspects of PALs I, including the permissible application fee, interest rate, loan amounts, loan maturities, membership requirement, and the cap on the amount of loans made by an FCU. The Board also asked commenters to describe any payday alternative loan programs they were offering outside of PALs I.

    7 75 FR 58285, 58288 (Sept. 24, 2010).

    In response, the Board received 27 comment letters from trade organizations, state credit union leagues, private citizens, consumer advocacy groups, a federal agency, lending networks, and FCUs. Generally, almost all of the commenters suggested at least one change to PALs I. There was, however, no general consensus among the commenters as to which aspects of the rule the Board should amend. The Board chose, at that time, not to undertake any changes to PALs I.

    D. Evaluation of Data—Current Situation

    On the December 31, 2017, 5300 call report, 518 FCUs reported offering PALs loans. They reported 190,723 outstanding loans with an aggregate balance of $132.4 million. These figures represent a significant increase from 2012 when the Board issued the ANPR discussed above. Based on the 2012 5300 call report, approximately 386 FCUs offered PALs loans, totaling 38,749 PALs loans with an aggregate outstanding balance of approximately $13.5 million.8

    8Id. at 2447 (May 5, 2010).

    E. Justification and Rationale

    The Board has recently revisited PALs I and the trends in PALs loans data, as presented above. The data shows a significant increase in the total dollar amount of PALs loans outstanding, but only a modest increase in the number of FCUs offering these loans. The Board wants to ensure that all FCUs that are interested in offering PALs loans are able to do so. The terms of PALs II loans are more flexible and the product is potentially more profitable for FCUs, which should increase interest. The Board notes that PALs II would not replace PALs I. Rather, PALs II would be an additional option FCUs could choose in making PALs loans to their members. An FCU could choose to make PALs I loans, PALs II loans, or both.

    II. Proposed Rule

    As noted above, PALs II will incorporate many of the features of PALs I, but will provide additional flexibility for FCUs in the areas of loan amount, membership requirement, loan term, and number of loans permitted. The Board notes, however, that PALs I loans and PALs II loans are distinct products that must satisfy all of the regulatory conditions applicable to the particular type of loan in order to be classified as such. For example, a $300 loan with a six-month maturity made to a person who has been a member for two-weeks is a PALs II loan because it meets all of the requirements for a PALs II loan, but it is not a PALs I loan because it does not meet the membership requirement of PALs I. As discussed below, this distinction is critical as it has implications for compliance with the CFPB's regulations. Of course, a loan that does not satisfy all of the conditions of either PALs I or PALs II is neither a PALs I nor a PALs II loan.

    A. Features Incorporated From PALs I

    The Board is proposing to incorporate the following features from PALs I into PALs II. These features achieve a balance between consumer protection and safety and soundness for FCUs.

    1. Permissible interest rate. The permissible interest rate for a loan under PALs II will be 1000 basis points above the established general interest rate ceiling, as set by the Board.

    2. Loan structure. A PALs II loan must be a closed-end loan.

    3. Permissible fees. An FCU may charge an application fee, provided it charges the fee to all members applying for a new loan and the fee reflects the actual costs associated with processing the application, but in no case may the application fee exceed $20.

    4. Rollovers. An FCU may not roll over any PALs II loan, but it may extend the loan term up to the maximum 12 months permitted by the rule, if the loan was made with a lesser loan term, provided the FCU does not charge any additional fees or extend any new credit.

    5. Aggregate lending cap. An FCU making PALs II loans must include in its written lending policies a limit on the aggregate dollar amount of loans made under this program of a maximum of 20% of net worth and implement appropriate underwriting guidelines to minimize risk.

    6. Amortization. An FCU must amortize all PALs II loans and may not include balloon payments.

    B. Features Unique to PALs II

    For the reasons discussed in each of the subsections below, the Board is proposing PALs II with certain features different from PALs I. The Board believes the different features in PALs II will encourage additional FCUs to offer PALs II loans as an alternative to predatory payday loans. In addition, these different features will help FCUs meet the specific demands of certain payday loan borrowers that may not be met by PALs I and provide borrowers with a safer, less expensive alternative to traditional payday loans.

    1. Loan Amount. The Board is proposing to permit PALs II loans in amounts up to $2,000, which is significantly higher than PALs I loans. Also, PALs II would eliminate the minimum loan amount that is part of the PALs I program. The Board believes a higher maximum and no minimum loan amount will allow FCUs to better meet the demands of payday loan borrowers. Further, a higher loan amount may allow some borrowers to consolidate high-priced, traditional payday loans into one less expensive, consumer friendly PALs II loan.

    2. Loan Term. Corresponding to the increase in permissible loan amount, the Board is proposing a maximum loan term of 12 months. This differs from the six-month maximum loan term for PALs I, and is directly correlated to the requirement that FCUs amortize PALs loans and the proposed higher PALs II loan limit. PALs II loans would retain the PALs I minimum term of one month to ensure borrowers have sufficient time to repay their loans and are not subjected to the typical two-week repayment period imposed by most traditional payday lenders. The Board notes that FCUs would be free to choose an appropriate loan term, provided the loan fully amortizes, but encourages FCUs to select loan terms that are in the best financial interests of borrowers.

    3. Membership Requirement. The Board is proposing to impose no minimum length of membership requirement for a PALs II loan. Conversely, under PALs I, an FCU must set a minimum length of membership requirement of at least one month before lending to a borrower. The Board included the membership requirement in PALs I as a safety measure for FCUs. As noted in the final PALs I rule, the Board believed a minimum membership requirement of one month would build a meaningful relationship between the borrower and the FCU and help reduce the chance of a borrower defaulting on a PALs I loan.9 While the Board still encourages FCUs to consider a minimum membership requirement, the Board wants to provide FCUs with maximum flexibility to reach as many potential borrowers as possible in a safe and sound manner. Accordingly, PALs II does not impose a minimum length of membership requirement. Allowing FCUs to make loans without a minimum length of membership requirement will permit FCUs to assess their own risk tolerances and make loans to payday loan borrowers who need access to funds immediately and would otherwise turn to traditional payday lenders to meet that need. The Board reminds FCUs, however, that all borrowers must be members of the credit union, regardless of a length of membership requirement.

    9 75 FR 58285, 58288 (Sept. 24, 2010).

    4. Number of Loans. The Board proposes no requirement in PALs II limiting an FCU to making only three PALs loans to a member in a rolling six-month period. This limitation is applicable to PALs I loans and permits FCUs to make one loan at a time to a particular borrower and no more than three in any rolling six-month period to that borrower. The Board proposes to remove the rolling six-month requirement for PALs II to provide maximum flexibility to FCUs to help meet the demand of borrowers in a safe and sound manner. Under this proposal, FCUs would still only be permitted to make one loan at a time to any one borrower, but would be able to make additional loans to that borrower with no time restrictions provided there is only one loan outstanding at a time to that borrower. The Board believes this will better enable FCUs to meet the demands of those borrowers who take out very small loans, repay them rapidly, and need additional loans within a six-month period.

    The Board is proposing to create a new subsection in § 701.21(c)(7) that will contain the regulatory text for PALs II. The Board notes that the best practices and guidance that is applicable to the current PALs rule will also apply to PALs II.

    C. Compliance With the CFPB's Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans Rule (Payday Loan Rule)

    On November 17, 2017, the CFPB passed its Payday Loan Rule, which, among other things, establishes consumer protections for certain credit products and deems certain practices to be abusive and unfair.10 These abusive and unfair practices include: (1) Failing to reasonably determine that consumers have the ability to repay a loan according to its terms; and (2) attempting to withdraw payments from a consumer's account after two consecutive payments attempts have failed. The Payday Loan Rule also includes registration and record retention requirements.

    10 82 FR 54472 (Nov. 17, 2017).

    The Payday Loan Rule provides a “safe harbor” for any loan that is made by an FCU in compliance with all of the requirements in 12 CFR 701.21(c)(7)(iii), thereby fully exempting those loans from compliance with the Payday Loan Rule.11 The Board strongly supported the safe harbor for PAL loans made by FCUs and applauds the CFPB for recognizing that PALs loans made in conformity with 12 CFR 701.21(c)(7)(iii) of the NCUA's regulations are a responsible, safe, and non-abusive alternative to most traditional payday loans. Accordingly, so that FCUs may continue to avail themselves of the safe harbor from the Payday Loan Rule, the Board will maintain the current PALs rule unchanged, as PALs I.

    11Id. at 54548.

    To provide additional flexibility to FCUs, however, the Board is proposing PALs II as an additional option to serve members' needs in the payday lending space. The Board recognizes that PALs II loans will not qualify for the safe harbor from the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule. However, in the Payday Loan Rule, the CFPB also provided a partial exemption for “alternative loans.” The CFPB defines “alternative loans” as those loans that meet all of the requirements of the NCUA's current PALs rule, except that lenders are not required to have a minimum membership requirement or a limit on the number of loans they can provide to any one borrower in a six-month period.

    While PALs II loans, therefore, will not qualify for the safe harbor, these loans can qualify for the alternative loans exemption under particular conditions. Specifically, to qualify as an “alternative loan” a PALs II loan must meet all of the requirements of PALs I, except FCUs are not required to have a minimum membership requirement or a restriction on the number of loans provided to a borrower in a six-month period. The Board believes this proposed change will provide FCUs with additional flexibilities while retaining a partial exemption from the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.

    In addition, the Board is also proposing to authorize additional flexibility in PALs II by raising the maximum amount of a permissible loan to $2,000 and increasing the maximum maturity to 12 months. PALs II loans that utilize these additional flexibilities, however, will not qualify for either the safe harbor or the exemption for “alternative loans.” The Board believes these additional flexibilities will allow an FCU to make a business decision in crafting a PALs program that takes into account the needs of its members and its ability to comply with the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.

    III. Request for Comment—Additional Alternatives

    While the terms of PALs II in this proposal would provide FCUs with additional flexibility to meet the demands of borrowers, the Board is considering issuing an additional alternative PALs rule in the future. Before proposing any additional alternatives, however, the Board requests comment on the need and demand for additional alternatives.

    Specifically, the Board s requests comment on whether to include some or all of the features of PALs II in PALs I. This option would make PALs I more flexible, but also would eliminate FCUs' safe harbor from the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.

    Also, the Board is considering creating an additional kind of PALs rule, defined as PALs III, which would be even more flexible than PALs II. Before proposing PALs III, however, the Board requests comment on whether there is demand for such a product, as well as what features and loan structures could be included in PALs III. The Board notes, however, that along with the flexibility of additional features in PALs III, FCUs would be subject to all aspects of the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule.

    The Board poses the specific questions below for comment, but invites stakeholders to provide input of any kind on any aspect of a potential PALs III rule.

    1. Should the Board propose a third alternative PALs rule and why?

    2. Should the Board set the permissible interest rate for PALs III loans above that permitted for other PALs loans? If so, why and what legal justification supports a higher interest rate?

    3. Should the Board increase in PALs III the maximum amount an FCU can charge for an application fee above that permitted for other PALs loans?

    4. Should the Board allow FCUs to make more than one kind of PALs loan at a time to a borrower?

    5. Should the Board set in PALs III the limit on the aggregate dollar amount of loans made above that permitted for other PALs loans?

    6. Should the Board eliminate for PALs III the requirement that FCUs implement appropriate underwriting guidelines?

    7. Should the Board set for PALs III the maximum loan amount above that permitted for other PALs loans?

    8. Should the maturities for PALs III loans be longer than those permitted for other PALs loans?

    9. Should the Board permit PALs III to include an open-end loan product?

    a. If the Board permits an open-end product,12 should the Board allow FCUs to charge participation fees, provided the fees are not considered a finance charge under Regulation Z? 13

    12 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(20).

    13Id. at § 1026.4.

    b. If the Board permits participation fees on an open-end PALs product, should the Board set a maximum cap on that fee, and, if so, what should the maximum amount be?

    10. Should the Board require FCUs to conduct an ability to repay determination in PALs III similar to that required by the CFPB's Payday Loan Rule?

    11. Should the Board prohibit FCUs from charging overdraft fees for PALs loan payments drawn against a member's account?

    IV. Regulatory Procedures Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (those under $100 million in assets). This proposal would provide a limited number of FCUs making PALs loans with additional flexibility to make such loans. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) (PRA), the NCUA may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. For purposes of the PRA, an information collection may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a third-party disclosure requirement, referred to as a paperwork burden. The information collection requirements of § 701.21 of NCUA's regulations are assigned OMB control number 3133-0092 and this proposed rule would not impose any new burden.

    Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

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

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

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701

    Credit unions, Federal credit unions.

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

    For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701 as set forth below:

    PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS 1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312.

    2. Amend § 701.21 by a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7)(iii)(A)(4)(A) and (B) as (c)(7)(iii)(A)(4)(i) and (ii) respectively. b. Revising the header to paragraph (c)(7)(iii), paragraphs (c)(7)(iii)(A)(8) and (c)(7)(iii)(B) and adding paragraph (c)(7)(iv) to read as follows:
    § 701.21 Loans to members and lines of credit to members

    (c) * * *

    (7) * * *

    (iii) Payday alternative loans I (PALs I).

    (A) * * *

    (8) The Federal credit union includes, in its written lending policies, a limit on the aggregate dollar amount of PALs I and PALs II loans made under this section of a maximum of 20% of net worth and implements appropriate underwriting guidelines to minimize risk; for example, requiring a borrower to verify employment by producing at least two recent pay stubs.

    (B) PALs I Loan Program guidance and best practices. In developing a successful PALs I loan program, a Federal credit union should consider how the program will help benefit a member's financial well-being while considering the higher degree of risk associated with this type of lending. The guidance and best practices are intended to help Federal credit unions minimize risk and develop a successful program, but are not an exhaustive checklist and do not guarantee a successful program with a low degree of risk.

    (1) Program features. Several features that may increase the success of a PALs I loan program and enhance member benefit include adding a savings component, financial education, reporting of members' payment of PALs I loans to credit bureaus, or electronic loan transactions as part of a PALs I program. In addition, although a Federal credit union cannot require members to authorize a payroll deduction, a Federal credit union should encourage or incentivize members to utilize payroll deduction.

    (2) Underwriting. Federal credit unions need to develop minimum underwriting standards that account for a member's need for quickly available funds, while adhering to principles of responsible lending. Underwriting standards should address required documentation for proof of employment or income, including at least two recent paycheck stubs. Federal credit unions should be able to use a borrower's proof of recurring income as the key criterion in developing standards for maturity lengths and loan amounts so a borrower can manage repayment of the loan. For members with established accounts, Federal credit unions should only need to review a member's account records and proof of recurring income or employment.

    (3) Risk avoidance. Federal credit unions need to consider risk avoidance strategies, including: Requiring members to participate in direct deposit and conducting a thorough evaluation of the Federal credit union's resources and ability to engage in a PALs I loan program.

    (iv)(A) Payday alternative loans II (PALs II). Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of this section, a Federal credit union may charge an interest rate of 1000 basis points above the maximum interest rate as established by the Board, provided the Federal credit union is making a closed-end loan in accordance with the following conditions:

    (1) The principal of the loan is not more than $2,000;

    (2) The loan has a minimum maturity term of one month and a maximum maturity term of twelve months;

    (3) The Federal credit union does not make more than one PALs loan at a time to a borrower;

    (4) The Federal credit union must not roll-over any PALs II loan;

    (i) The prohibition against roll-overs does not apply to an extension of the loan term within the maximum loan terms in paragraph (c)(7)(iv)(2)(j)(1)(ii) provided the Federal credit union does not charge any additional fees or extend any new credit.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (5) The Federal credit union fully amortizes the loan;

    (6) The Federal credit union charges an application fee to all members applying for a new loan that reflects the actual costs associated with processing the application, but in no case may the application fee exceed $20; and

    (7) The Federal credit union includes, in its written lending policies, a limit on the aggregate dollar amount of PALs I and PALs II loans made under this section of a maximum of 20% of net worth and implements appropriate underwriting guidelines to minimize risk; for example, requiring a borrower to verify employment by producing at least two recent pay stubs.

    (B) PALs II Loan Program guidance and best practices. The PALs II loan program guidance and best practices are the same as those outlined for PALs I in paragraph (c)(7)(iii)(B) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11591 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0493; Product Identifier 2017-NM-141-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) 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 Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that cracks were found on the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the nose landing gear (NLG). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies having certain part numbers, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections for Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 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 Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; 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-2018-0493; 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-2018-0493; Product Identifier 2017-NM-141-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0181, dated September 18, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, CN-235-300, and C-295 airplanes The MCAI states:

    Cracks were reportedly found on nose landing gear (NLG) door actuator shaft assemblies on CN-235 aeroplanes. The subsequent design review determined that combined or multiple rupture of the affected shaft assembly could occur, without this being signalised to the flight crew.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an in-flight NLG door opening, possibly resulting in detachment of the affected door, with consequent damage to, or reduced control of, the aeroplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmissions AOT-CN235-32-0001 Revision (Rev.) 2 and AOT-C295-32-0001 Rev. 2 to provide inspection instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed (DET) or special detailed [rototest] inspections of the NLG door actuator shaft assembly, as applicable, and, depending on findings, corrective actions [including replacement of any cracked component, or cracked NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part]. This [EASA] AD also introduces a modification for CN-235 aeroplanes as (optional) terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by this [EASA] AD.

    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-2018-0493.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Defence and Space has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016. This service information describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the NLG, and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

    Airbus Defence and Space has also issued Service Bulletin 235-32-0031C, dated September 22, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modification of the NLG door latching mechanism.

    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 14 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
  • Inspections 21 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,785 per inspection cycle $0 $1,785 per inspection cycle $24,990 per inspection cycle.
    Optional Terminating Action Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Modification for Model CN-235 airplanes 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 $33,626 $34,476

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

    On-condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement 14 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,190 $18,720 $19,910
    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 Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2018-0493; Product Identifier 2017-NM-141-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes.

    (2) Model C-295 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that cracks were found on the door mechanism actuator shaft assemblies of the nose landing gear (NLG). We are issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could lead to an in-flight NLG door opening and possibly result in detachment of the affected door, and consequent damage to, or reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definition of Affected NLG Door Mechanism Actuator Shaft Assembly

    For the purpose of this AD, an affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly has part number (P/N) 35-42311-00 or P/N 95-42315-00, depending on airplane model.

    (h) Detailed and Rototest Inspections

    (1) For any affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly: Before exceeding 600 flight hours accumulated by any NLG door mechanism lever or cam since new, or within 60 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, on the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with the NLG actuator shaft installed, do a detailed inspection for cracking of all installed NLG door mechanism levers and cams, in accordance with the instructions in Airbus Defence and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, depending on the findings or corrective actions completed, as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, after the previous inspection.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (h)(1) of This AD—Repetitive Inspection Intervals Findings/corrective action completed
  • (after the previous inspection)
  • Interval
    NLG door vibration observed
  • (during previous flights)
  • 150 flight hours.
    No findings 300 flight hours. Damaged components replaced 300 flight hours. NLG door actuator shaft assembly replaced by new assembly 600 flight hours.

    (2) For any affected NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly: Before exceeding 1,800 flight hours accumulated by the NLG door shaft of the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly since new, or within 60 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a rototest or detailed inspection of the NLG door actuator shaft, in accordance with the instructions in Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable. Repeat the rototest or detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, depending on the inspection method used during the most recent inspection.

    Figure 2 to Paragraph (h)(2) of This AD—Repetitive Inspection Intervals Inspection method Interval Rototest 900 flight hours. Detailed 600 flight hours. (i) Corrective Actions

    (1) During any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if any crack with a length of 18 millimeters (mm) (0.709 inches) or more is found, or if there is more than one crack with a length of less than 18 mm (0.709 inch) found, before further flight, replace the cracked component, or replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.

    (2) During any detailed inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if a single crack with a length of less than 18 mm (0.709 inch) is found, within 5 flight cycles after the detailed inspection when the crack was found, replace any cracked component, or replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.

    (3) During any detailed or rototest inspection required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if any crack is found, before further flight, replace the NLG door mechanism actuator shaft with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defence and Space AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.

    (j) Replacement not Terminating Action

    Accomplishment of any corrective action on an airplane, as required by paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, is not terminating action for the repetitive detailed or rototest inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, for that airplane.

    (k) Optional Terminating Action

    For Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes: Modification of the NLG door latching mechanism, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Defence and Space Service Bulletin SB-235-32-0031C, dated September 22, 2016, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, for that airplane.

    (l) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, installation of an NLG door mechanism actuator shaft assembly having P/N 35-42311-00 or P/N 95-42315-00, or any of its components, is allowed, provided that the part is new; or provided that the assembly or the components, as applicable, has passed an inspection; in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; or AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; as applicable.

    (m) Reporting Not Required

    Although Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2016; both specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, and the corrective actions required by paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (n)(1) through (n)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, dated September 29, 2015.

    (2) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-CN235-32-0001, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2016.

    (3) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, dated September 29, 2015.

    (4) Airbus Space and Defence AOT AOT-C295-32-0001, Revision 1, dated February 19, 2016.

    (o) 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 (p)(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 Space and Defense's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0181, dated September 18, 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-2018-0493.

    (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 Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; 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. 2018-11699 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0497; Product Identifier 2017-NM-140-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 certain Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47 angle fitting. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane configuration, a modification of certain angle fitting attachment holes, repetitive inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, 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 19, 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-2018-0497; 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 St., 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. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0497; Product Identifier 2017-NM-140-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by cracks found on the Frame (FR) 47 angle fitting, Airbus issued SB [Service Bulletin] A300-57-6049, SB A300-57-6050, and SB A300-57-6086.

    These cracks, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the centre wing box (CWB) of the aeroplane.

    Consequently, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France published AD 94-241-170, AD 1999-147-279, AD 2000-533-328 and AD F-2004-159 (EASA approval 2004-9779), each AD superseding the previous one, to require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspections of the FR47 internal lower angle fitting.

    After DGAC France AD F-2004-159 was issued, cracks were reportedly found on the horizontal flange of FR47 internal corner angle fitting during accomplishment of routine maintenance structural inspection and modification in accordance with the instructions of Airbus SB A300-57-6050. Prompted by these findings, Airbus reviewed and amended the inspection programme for the internal lower angle fitting flange (horizontal face).

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0092 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-18”)], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD F-2004-159, which was superseded, and requiring additional repetitive inspections of the CWB lower panel through the ultrasonic method and, depending on findings, re-installation of removed fasteners in transition fit instead of interface.

    In addition, DGAC France had previously issued AD F-2005-124 (EASA approval 2005-6071) to require the same inspections for A300 F4-608ST aeroplanes, in accordance with Airbus SB A300-57-9001 and SB A300-57-9002.

    Following the discovery of numerous cracks during the accomplishment of SB A300-57-6049 and SB A300-57-6089 inspections, Airbus developed in a first step a new (recommended) modification (Airbus SB A300-57-6113) and defined, for post-mod aeroplanes, new inspections, and published SB A300-57-6119, which included new inspection methods (ultrasonic/radiographic) with new inspection thresholds and intervals.

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0198, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0092, which was superseded, to require repetitive inspections for post-SB A300-57-6113 aeroplanes.

    Since EASA AD 2016-0198 was issued, Airbus revised in a second step the inspection programme for A300-600 pre-SB 57-6113 and A300-600ST aeroplanes, reducing inspection thresholds and intervals. At this opportunity, the existing ultrasonic inspection for A300-600 aeroplanes has been added for A300-600ST aeroplanes.

    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0198 for A300-600 aeroplanes and of DGAC France AD F-2005-124 for A300-600ST aeroplanes, which are both superseded, and requires [modification through cold expansion of certain angle fitting attachment holes and] repetitive inspections [for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions] with new compliance times and intervals. This [EASA] AD is applicable to both A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes * * *.

    Related investigative actions include a rotating probe inspection for cracking. Corrective actions include replacing damaged fasteners, reaming and drilling holes, installing the next nominal fastener for oversized bore holes, and repairing cracks. 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-2018-0497.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2014-20-18

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2014-20-18. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require depending on airplane configuration, a modification of certain angle fitting attachment holes, inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area. Accomplishment of the proposed modification and initial inspections would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2014-20-18.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.

    • Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating probe inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web.

    • Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating probe inspections for cracking of certain holes in the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides) and for ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the aft bottom panel.

    • Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016. This service information describes procedures for ultrasonic and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib 1 junction area.

    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 65 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 Up to 727 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $61,795 Up to $3,370 Up to $65,165 Up to $4,235,725 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $85 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this 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 NPRM is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM 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 NPRM 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0497; Product Identifier 2017-NM-140-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014) (“AD 2014-20-18”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, and A300 F4-605R airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12171 or 12249 has been embodied in production, or on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6069 has been embodied in service.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47 angle fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of FR47 angle fitting, 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) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) apply.

    (1) Group 1 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Group 2 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.

    (3) The average flight time (AFT) for the inspection threshold is defined as the flight hours (FH) divided by the flight cycles (FC), counted from the first flight of the airplane.

    (4) The AFT for the inspection interval is defined as the FH divided by the FC, counted from the date of the last inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, as applicable.

    (5) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted from the first flight of the airplane.

    (6) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted since the date on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050 was embodied on the airplane.

    (h) Modification

    For all airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not been embodied: Before exceeding 15,100 FC or 38,900 FH, whichever occurs first after first flight of the airplane; or within the “grace periods” defined in paragraph 1.B.(4), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001; whichever occurs later, modify the angle fitting attachment holes of the wing center box by cold expansion, including doing a rotating probe inspection for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001. Where paragraph 1.B.(4), “Accomplishment Timescale,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001, specifies “grace periods” relative to the receipt of the service bulletin, count the “grace periods” from December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08). If any crack is found during any inspection: 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 Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (i) Internal Lower Angle Fitting (Vertical Face) Web Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes H, I, K, L, M, N, U, V, W, X, and Y of the internal lower angle fitting web (left-hand and right-hand sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD.

    EP04JN18.002 (j) Internal Lower Angle Fitting (Horizontal Face) Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, P, Q, S, and T (adjacent to hole G) of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD.

    EP04JN18.003 (k) Aft Bottom Panel Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable thresholds specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the aft bottom panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD.

    EP04JN18.004 (l) FR47/Rib 1 Junction Area Inspections

    For Group 2 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable thresholds specified in figure 4 to paragraph (l) of this AD, do ultrasonic and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in figure 4 to paragraph (l) of this AD. Count the threshold compliance times from the date on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016, was embodied on the airplane.

    EP04JN18.005 (m) Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Where the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for instructions, before further flight, obtain instructions approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (1) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017.

    (2) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017.

    (3) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016.

    (n) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD: Report the results of the inspections required by paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/), or submit the results to Airbus in accordance with the instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles and flight hours on the airplane.

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after 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.

    (o) Terminating Action for AD 2014-20-18

    Accomplishment of the action required by paragraph (h) of this AD and the initial inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j), and (k) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-20-18.

    (p) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08), using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 02, dated February 10, 2000.

    (q) 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 (r)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (3) 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 work-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.

    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0497.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., 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 23, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11822 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-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 certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not detected by upgraded flight control primary computer (FCPC) software standards. This proposed AD would require upgrading certain FCPCs, which would terminate a certain airplane flight manual revision for certain airplanes. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 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—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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-2018-0498; 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:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    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-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-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 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Airbus Model A330-200 series airplanes; and Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In 2015, occurrences were reported of multiple Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages. Investigation results indicated the need for AOA monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage.

    This condition, if not corrected, could, under specific circumstances, lead to undue activation of the Alpha protection, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed new FCPC software standards for enhanced AOA monitoring and, consequently, EASA issued AD 2015-0124 (later revised) [related FAA AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-30”)] to require these software standard upgrades.

    Since EASA AD 2015-0124R3 was issued, it was identified that, for some cases, AOA blockages were not detected by those FCPC software standards. Consequently, new FCPC software standards, as specified in Table 1 of this [EASA] AD, have been developed (Airbus modification (mod) 206412, mod 206413 and mod 206414) to further improve the detection of AOA blockage. Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-27-3222 and SB A330-27-3223 to implement these mods on in-service aeroplanes. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0246 to require a software standard upgrade of the three FCPCs, either by modification or replacement.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Emergency Procedure, as previously required by EASA AD 2014-0267-E [related to FAA AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066,(80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-52”)] can also be removed for other AOA sensors and FCPC configurations. This [EASA] AD revises paragraph (2) accordingly, also introducing Table 2 for that purpose.

    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-2018-0498.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A330-27-3222, dated February 16, 2017.

    • Service Bulletin A330-27-3223, dated June 6, 2017.

    This service information describes procedures for upgrading (by modification or replacement, as applicable) certain FCPCs. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplanes in different configurations. 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.

    Related Rulemaking

    AD 2014-25-52 applies to all Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2014-25-52 requires revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot). For certain airplanes, accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would terminate the AFM requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52.

    AD 2016-25-30 applies to all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2016-25-30 requires new FCPC software standards. For certain airplanes, accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would terminate the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 103 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification/replacement 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $26,265

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0498; Product Identifier 2018-NM-013-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 19, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-25-52, Amendment 39-18066 (80 FR 3161, January 22, 2015) (“AD 2014-25-52”) and AD 2016-25-30, Amendment 39-18756, (82 FR 1175, January 5, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-30”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD; all manufacturer serial numbers; equipped with flight control primary computers (FCPCs) having software standard P13/M22 (hardware 2K2), P14/M23 (hardware 2K1) or M23 (hardware 2K0), or earlier standard.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    The software standards specified in paragraph (c) of this AD correspond, respectively, to part number (P/N) LA2K2B100DG0000, P/N LA2K1A100DF0000 and P/N LA2K01500AF0000. All affected airplanes should be equipped with this software, as required by AD 2016-25-30.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of Angle of Attack (AOA) blockages not detected by upgraded FCPC software standards. We are issuing this AD to prevent Alpha protection activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definition of Groups

    Group 1 airplanes are those in pre-mod 206412, pre-mod 206413, or pre-mod 206414 configuration, as applicable. Group 2 airplanes are those in post-mod (206412, 206413, or 206414, as applicable) configuration.

    (h) Upgrade Flight Control Primary Computer Software

    For Group 1 airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Upgrade (by modification or replacement, as applicable) the three FCPCs, as specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD.

    EP04JN18.000 (i) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2014-25-52

    For airplanes with an AOA configuration as identified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or as identified in paragraph (m)(2) of AD 2016-12-15, Amendment 39-18564 (81 FR 40160, June 21, 2016) (“AD 2016-12-15”), as applicable: Accomplishing the upgrade required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52, and the airplane flight manual (AFM) procedure required by paragraph (g) of AD 2014-25-52 may be removed from the AFM.

    EP04JN18.001 (j) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2016-25-30

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-25-30 for that airplane.

    (k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    Installation of any software or hardware of a version earlier than the one listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD is prohibited, as required by paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.

    (l) 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 manager of the International Branch, 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: 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 EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0246R1, dated April 6, 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-2018-0498.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3229.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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 23, 2018. James Cashdollar, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11700 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 892 [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1553] Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Medical Image Analyzers AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this proposed order to reclassify medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection as postamendments class III (premarket approval) devices (regulated under product code MYN), into class II (special controls), subject to premarket notification. FDA is also identifying the proposed special controls that the Agency believes are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. These devices are intended to direct the clinician's attention to portions of an image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient's radiology images by the clinician. If finalized, this order will reclassify these types of devices from class III to class II and reduce regulatory burdens on industry as these types of devices will no longer be required to submit a premarket approval application (PMA) but can instead submit a less burdensome premarket notification (510(k)) before marketing their device.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed order by August 3, 2018. Please see section X of this document for the proposed effective date when the new requirements apply and for the proposed effective date of a final order based on this proposed order.

    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 August 3, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 3, 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 Rulemaking 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-N-1553 for “Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Medical Image Analyzers.” 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Ochs, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6661, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background—Regulatory Authorities

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).

    Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are automatically classified by section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.

    A postamendments device that has been initially classified in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act may be reclassified into class I or II under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act. Section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA acting by order can reclassify the device into class I or II on its own initiative, or in response to a petition from the manufacturer or importer of the device. To change the classification of the device, the proposed new class must have sufficient regulatory controls to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.

    Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966); Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F. Supp. 382, 388-391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light of changes in “medical science” (Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 1970)). Whether data before the Agency are old or new, the “new information” to support reclassification under 513(f)(3) must be “valid scientific evidence”, as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., General Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Mfrs. Assoc. v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (DC Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986)). FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA (see section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).

    In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, the Agency is proposing to reclassify medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection from class III into class II on the basis that there is sufficient information to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that a class II device may be exempted from the 510(k) premarket notification requirements, if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    II. Regulatory History of the Devices

    This proposed order covers medical image analyzers including computer-assisted/aided detection (CADe) devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection that are assigned product code MYN. These postamendments devices are currently regulated as class III devices under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA has experience reviewing and analyzing data and information for medical image analyzers since premarket approval of the first device for these uses in 1998. On June 26, 1998, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) approved the first CADe device included in this reclassification order. In the December 30, 1998, Federal Register notice (63 FR 71930), FDA announced a PMA approval order for R2 Technology, Inc. M 1000 Image Checker and the availability of the summary of safety and effectiveness data for the device. Since 1998, 11 devices have received premarket approval for the analysis of several modalities, including mammography, ultrasound, as well as chest and dental radiographs. Based upon our review experience and consistent with the FD&C Act and FDA's regulations, FDA believes that these devices should be reclassified from class III into class II because there is sufficient information to establish special controls that can provide reasonable assurance of the device's safety and effectiveness.

    This proposed order does not apply to medical image analyzers/CADe devices currently classified under § 892.2050 (21 CFR 892.2050), Picture archiving and communication system. FDA has regulated other CADe devices intended to aid lung nodule and colon polyp detection from computed tomography images as class II devices under § 892.2050, Picture archiving and communication system and assigned the following product codes:

    • NWE (Colon Computed Tomography System, Computer-Aided Detection);

    • OEB (Lung Computed Tomography System, Computer-Aided Detection);

    • OMJ (Chest X-Ray Computer Aided Detection).

    There have been no recalls for class II CADe devices. As of the date of this proposal, FDA has received three recalls for class III devices and one Medical Device Report (MDR), however, in the past 10 years only one recall for the class III devices has been received due to distribution of the CADe device without PMA approval. None of these recalls were classified as a Class I recall. There were also no MDRs related to either the class III medical image analyzers or class II CADe devices in the past 10 years. This evidence suggests that the safety profiles for existing class III CADe devices are similar to the class II CADe, and consequently that our regulatory controls applied should be similar.

    III. Device Description

    This proposed order applies to medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection that are currently regulated as class III devices as postamendment devices. These devices are intended to identify, mark, highlight, or in any other manner direct the clinicians' attention to portions of a radiology image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient radiology images by the clinicians. These devices incorporate pattern recognition and data analysis capabilities and operate on previously acquired radiology images, including mammography, radiograph, and ultrasound. These devices are not intended to replace the review by a qualified radiologist or to be used for triage. Furthermore, these devices are not intended to recommend diagnosis of any diseases.

    IV. Proposed Reclassification

    The Radiological Devices Panel (the Panel) convened on March 4-5, 2008 (Ref. 1) and discussed issues relating to how medical image analyzers including CADe devices are used in clinical decisionmaking, how the performance of the devices should be evaluated, and the information needed to determine whether the device provides a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. Additional discussions were held regarding medical image analyzers for mammography and radiograph applications. Following the 2008 Panel Meeting, FDA convened a second meeting of the Panel on November 18, 2009. The 2009 Panel Meeting was asked to discuss two proposed draft guidances for the evaluation of medical image analyzers and the Agency's regulatory strategy for these devices (Ref. 2). Subsequently, the two draft guidance documents were finalized by FDA and were made public on July 3, 2012 (Refs. 3 and 4). The guidance document entitled “Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” provides guidance regarding clinical performance assessment studies for CADe applied to radiology images and radiology device data. The guidance document entitled “Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” provides guidance regarding premarket notification (510(k)) submissions for CADe applied to radiology images and radiology device data. These guidance documents describe clinical and non-clinical methods to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CADe devices, including medical image analyzers covered by this proposed order. In addition to the two guidance documents, the Panel's discussion regarding the benefits and risks of medical image analyzers that were discussed at the 2008 and 2009 Panel meetings have been taken into consideration by the Agency when developing the proposed special controls provided in this proposed order below.

    Since publication of these guidance documents, the Agency has gained considerable experience in reviewing medical image analyzers using the methods described in the aforementioned guidance documents. Further, as part CDRH's 2014-2015 strategic priority “Strike the Right Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection,” a retrospective review of class III devices subject to a PMA was completed to determine whether or not, based on our current understanding of the technology, reclassification may be appropriate. During this retrospective review, FDA determined that sufficient information exists such that the risks of false positive and false negative results, misuse, and device failure can be mitigated, to establish special controls that, together with general controls, can provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of medical image analyzers and therefore proposes these devices be reclassified from class III to class II. On April 29, 2015, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register entitled “Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection” in which FDA announced plans to consider reclassifying medical image analyzers identified with the MYN product code from class III to class II (80 FR 23798). No adverse comments were received regarding our proposed intent for MYN.

    In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 860, subpart C, FDA is proposing to reclassify postamendments medical image analyzers, including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection, from class III into class II. FDA believes that there is sufficient information to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, that would effectively mitigate the risks to health identified in section V and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices. Absent the special controls identified in this proposed order, general controls applicable to the device are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    FDA is proposing to create a separate classification regulation for medical image analyzer devices that will be reclassified from class III to II. Under this proposed order, if finalized, the medical image analyzer devices will be identified as a prescription device. As such, the prescription device must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see § 801.109 (21 CFR 801.109), Prescription devices). Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352) and § 801.5 (21 CFR 801.5), as long as the conditions of § 801.109 are met. In this proposed order, if finalized, the Agency has identified the special controls under section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act that, together with general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness for medical image analyzer devices.

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and, therefore, does not intend to exempt these proposed class II devices from the premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a 510(k) and receive clearance prior to marketing the device.

    This proposal, if finalized, will decrease regulatory burden on the medical device industry and will reduce private costs and expenditures required to comply with Federal Regulations. Specifically, regulated industry will no longer have to submit a PMA but can instead submit a 510(k) to the Agency for review prior to marketing their device. A 510(k) is a less-burdensome pathway to market a device which typically results in a more timely premarket review compared to a PMA and reduces the regulatory burden on industry in addition to providing more timely access of these types of devices to patients.

    V. Risks to Health

    From the Panel discussions on March 4-5, 2008, and November 18, 2009, along with the peer-reviewed literature (Refs. 5-8) and FDA's experiences over the years in reviewing submissions for these devices and similar devices, FDA determined the probable risks to health associated with medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection are as follows: (1) False positive results may result in complications, such as incorrect management of the patient with possible adverse effects, and unnecessary additional radiology imaging and/or invasive procedures, such as biopsy; (2) false negative results could result in complications, including incorrect diagnosis and delay in disease management; (3) the device could be misused to analyze images from an unintended patient population or on images acquired with incompatible imaging hardware or incompatible image acquisition parameters, resulting in possibly lower device performance; (4) the device could be misused by not following the appropriate reading protocol, which may lead to lower sensitivity; and (5) device failure could result in the absence or delay of device output, or incorrect device output, which could likewise lead to inaccurate patient assessment.

    VI. Summary of the Reasons for Reclassification

    After considering the information above, FDA has determined that all class III medical image analyzers currently approved by FDA should be reclassified into class II on the basis that special controls, in addition to general controls, can be established to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA believes that the risks to health associated with medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection can be mitigated with special controls and that these mitigations will provide a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. FDA's reasons for reclassification of these devices are as follows:

    • The risk of false positive results and false negative results can be mitigated by demonstrating, through clinical performance assessment (e.g., reader studies), that reader performance improves when using the medical image analyzer. In instances where a medical image analyzer has the same intended use but has different technological characteristics compared to the legally marketed device (predicate), a performance comparison of the predicate and new device evaluating with the same assessment process on the same dataset that is representative of the intended population may be sufficient to demonstrate device safety and effectiveness. The risk of false positive results and false negative results can be further mitigated by special controls that require sufficient information in labeling to provide detailed instructions for use to the user and inform the user of the expected device performance on a dataset representative of the intended population.

    • The risk associated with misuse of the medical image analyzers on an unintended population can be mitigated by specifying in the labeling and indications for use of the device the intended patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to be effective. This risk can be further mitigated by special controls that require informing intended users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level.

    • The risk associated with misuse of the medical image analyzer on images acquired from unintended image acquisition hardware or image acquisition parameters can be mitigated by special controls that require including in the device labeling specifications for compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols.

    • The risk resulting from not following the intended reading protocol can be mitigated by including in the labeling the indications for use of the device, by providing adequate instructions for use including a description of the intended reading protocol, and by special controls requiring that the device labeling provide a detailed description of user training that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device.

    • The risk of device failure can be mitigated by requiring design verification and validation testing, and special controls that require device operating instructions. This risk can be further mitigated by special controls that require informing users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level.

    VII. Proposed Special Controls

    FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to general controls, are sufficient to mitigate the risks to health described in section V and provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these medical image analyzers:

    • Design verification and validation must include detailed descriptions of image analysis algorithms, detailed descriptions of study protocols and datasets, results from performance testing demonstrating the device improves reader performance in the intended use population, standalone performance testing protocols and results, and appropriate software documentation. Performance testing ensures that the risk of false positive and false negative results is reduced.

    • Labeling for the device must include detailed descriptions of the following: patient population, the intended reading protocol, the intended user and user training, device inputs and outputs, compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols. In addition, the labeling for the device must also include applicable warnings, limitations, precautions, device operating instructions, and a detailed summary of the performance testing. Detailed instructions for use and expected device performance on a dataset representative of the intended population in labeling helps minimize the risk of false positive and false negative results. Labeling ensures proper use of the device, including warnings to inform users of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level.

    Table 1 shows how FDA believes the special controls set forth in the proposed order will mitigate each of the risks to health described in section V.

    Table 1—Risks to Health and Mitigation Measures for Medical Image Analyzers Identified risk to health Mitigation measures/21 CFR section False positive results Special controls 1 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(1)) and 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). False negative results Special controls 1 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(1)) and 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). Device misuse (analyzing images from an unintended patient population, images acquired with incompatible imaging hardware, or incompatible image acquisition parameters) resulting in possibly lower device performance Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). Device misuse (not following the appropriate reading protocol) which may lead to lower sensitivity Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). Device failure Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)).

    In addition, FDA is proposing to limit these devices to prescription use under § 801.109. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act and § 801.5, as long as the conditions of § 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)). Under § 807.81, the device would continue to be subject to 510(k) notification requirements.

    If this proposed order is finalized, medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection will be reclassified into class II. The reclassification will be codified in § 892.2070. FDA believes that adherence to the proposed special controls, in addition to the general controls, is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA intends to update the guidance document entitled “Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” to make it consistent with this reclassification upon finalization of this proposed reclassification order.

    VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed order contains no new collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required. This proposed order refers to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    X. Proposed Effective Date

    FDA proposes that any final order based on this proposed order become effective 30 days after its date of publication in the Federal Register.

    XI. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    1. Transcript of the FDA Radiological Devices Panel Meeting, March 4-5, 2008 (available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAdvisory/results.cfm?panel=24&searchtype=1&month=0&year=&maxrows=10). 2. Transcript of the FDA Radiological Devices Panel Meeting, November 18, 2009 (available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404002254/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM197419.pdf). 3. “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff—Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions,” issued July 3, 2012 (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/cm187294.pdf). 4. “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data—Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions,” issued July 3, 2012 (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm187315.pdf). 5. Dromain, C., B. Boyer, R. Ferré, et al., “Computed-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) in the Detection of Breast Cancer,” European Journal of Radiology, 82(3): 417-423 (2013). 6. Fenton, J.J., G. Xing, J.G. Elmore, et al., “Short-Term Outcomes of Screening Mammography Using Computer-Aided Detection: A Population-Based Study of Medicare Enrollees,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 158: 580-587 (2013). 7. Gur, D., J.H. Sumkin, H.E. Rockette, et al., “Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96: 185-190 (2004). 8. Noble M., W. Bruening, S. Uhl, and K. Schoelles, “Computer-Aided Detection Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 279(6): 881-90 (2009). List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 892

    Radiology devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 892 be amended as follows:

    PART 892—RADIOLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 892 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

    2. Add § 892.2070 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 892.2070 Medical image analyzer.

    (a) Identification. Medical image analyzers, including computer-assisted/aided detection (CADe) devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection, is a prescription device that is intended to identify, mark, highlight, or in any other manner direct the clinicians' attention to portions of a radiology image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient radiology images by the clinicians. This device incorporates pattern recognition and data analysis capabilities and operates on previously acquired medical images. This device is not intended to replace the review by a qualified radiologist, and is not intended to be used for triage, or to recommend diagnosis.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Design verification and validation must include:

    (i) A detailed description of the image analysis algorithms including a description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, and algorithm limitations.

    (ii) A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing methods and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will improve reader performance as intended and to characterize the standalone device performance. Performance testing includes one or more standalone tests, side-by-side comparisons, or a reader study, as applicable.

    (iii) Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device improves reader performance in the intended use population when used in accordance with the instructions for use. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (e.g., receiver operator characteristic plot, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and diagnostic likelihood ratio). The test dataset must contain a sufficient number of cases from important cohorts (e.g., subsets defined by clinically relevant confounders, effect modifiers, concomitant diseases, and subsets defined by image acquisition characteristics) such that the performance estimates and confidence intervals of the device for these individual subsets can be characterized for the intended use population and imaging equipment.

    (iv) Appropriate software documentation (e.g., device hazard analysis; software requirements specification document; software design specification document; traceability analysis; description of verification and validation activities including system level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, and results; and cybersecurity).

    (2) Labeling must include the following:

    (i) A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use.

    (ii) A detailed description of the intended reading protocol.

    (iii) A detailed description of the intended user and user training that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device.

    (iv) A detailed description of the device inputs and outputs.

    (v) A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols.

    (vi) Discussion of warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (e.g., poor image quality or for certain subpopulations), as applicable.

    (vii) Device operating instructions.

    (viii) A detailed summary of the performance testing, including: test methods, dataset characteristics, results, and a summary of sub-analyses on case distributions stratified by relevant confounders, such as lesion and organ characteristics, disease stages, and imaging equipment.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11880 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0073; FRL-9978-92—Region 4] Air Plan Approval; SC; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the following four actions regarding the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP): Approve the portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for South Carolina, which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan; and convert the conditional approvals of the visibility prong of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to full approvals.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0073 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:

    Michele Notarianni, 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. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such “BART-eligible” sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).

    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was “better-than-BART,” a number of states in the CAIR region, including South Carolina, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (DC Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.2 Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.

    1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia), including South Carolina, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide “budgets” for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was “fatally flawed” and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), and in the same action, promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies in South Carolina's regional haze plan. EPA finalized a limited approval of South Carolina's regional haze plan on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.

    In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.3

    3 EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (77 FR at 33654) and Nebraska (77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012)). EPA has approved SIPs from several states relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11 states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.

    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative to the application of source-specific BART.4 EPA has determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic scope resulting from the actions EPA has taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand do not affect the continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a BART alternative, because the changes in geographic scope would not have adversely affected the results of the air quality modeling analysis upon which EPA based the 2012 determination. EPA's September 29, 2017, determination was based, in part, on EPA's final action approving a SIP revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016)) adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets and on SIP revisions submitted by Georgia and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets.5 Since that time, EPA has approved the SIP revisions from Georgia and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) and 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017), respectively.

    4 Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (DC Cir. filed November 28, 2017).

    5 EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South Carolina SIP revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866), and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively.

    A portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submittal seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval of its regional haze plan submitted on December 17, 2007, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.6 EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's request that EPA amend the State's regional haze plan by replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.

    6 On October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47936), EPA approved the portions of the September 5, 2017, SIP submission incorporating into South Carolina's SIP the State's regulations requiring South Carolina EGUs to participate in CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs and thus replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. In the October 13, 2017, action, EPA did not take any action regarding South Carolina's request in this September 5, 2017, SIP submission to revise the State's regional haze plan nor regarding the prong 4 element of the 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

    Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional approvals of the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to full approvals, as discussed in section III of this notice.7 All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections.

    7 On August 22, 2016, EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS submission. See 81 FR 56512. The notice of final rulemaking for the conditional approval inadvertently identified the date of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as July 17, 2008, rather than the correct date of July 17, 2012, presented in the notice of proposed rulemaking (81 FR 36842 (June 8, 2016)).

    1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. South Carolina submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on May 8, 2014. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.8

    8 With the exception of the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the other portions of South Carolina's May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 32651 (May 24, 2016).

    2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. South Carolina submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS on April 30, 2014. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of this submission.9

    9 With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the other portions of South Carolina's April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 63704 (September 16, 2016). EPA previously acted on the PSD elements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) of South Carolina's April 30, 2014, SIP submission in a separate action. See 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015). EPA acted on South Carolina's December 7, 2016, SIP submission addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in a separate action. See 82 FR 45995 (October 3, 2017).

    3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. South Carolina submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 18, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.10

    10 With the exception of the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the other portions of South Carolina's December 18, 2015, PM2.5 infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 82 FR 16930 (April 7, 2017). No action has been taken with respect to prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. South Carolina submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on July 17, 2012. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.11

    11 With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), the other portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP submission were addressed in a separate action. See 80 FR 11136 (March 2, 2015). EPA subsequently acted on the PSD elements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, SIP submission in a separate action. See 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).

    II. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).12 The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.

    12 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

    III. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed prong 4 and regional haze?

    South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission rely on the State having a fully approved regional haze plan to satisfy its prong 4 requirements.13 However, EPA has not fully approved South Carolina's regional haze plan, as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR.

    13 The April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission also cite to the State's December 2012 regional haze progress report.

    On April 19, 2016, South Carolina submitted a commitment letter to EPA to submit a SIP revision that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are at least as stringent as the budgets codified for South Carolina, and revises its regional haze plan to replace reliance on CAIR with CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. In its letter, South Carolina committed to providing this SIP revision within one year of EPA's final conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the infrastructure SIP revisions. On August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56512), EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portion of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on this commitment letter from the State. In accordance with the State's April 19, 2016, commitment letter, South Carolina submitted a SIP revision on September 5, 2017, to adopt provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs and to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. As noted above, EPA approved the portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revision adopting CSAPR. See 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017).

    EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State's September 5, 2017, SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert EPA's previous action on South Carolina's regional haze plan from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval of this portion of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan. Specifically, EPA's approval of the regional haze portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX BART requirements and first implementation period SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS include measures as necessary to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. Thus, EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for South Carolina which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze plan, EPA is therefore also proposing to convert the conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission.

    IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the regional haze plan portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for South Carolina which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan; and (4) convert EPA's September 26, 2016, conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and remove a FIP, and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

    • Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

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

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

    • Are 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.);

    • Do 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);

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

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

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Are 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

    • Do 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, these proposed actions for South Carolina do not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because they do not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, 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, EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as it relates to prong 4, this proposed action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing to determine that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. As it relates to the regional haze SIP, the proposal to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR has no substantial direct effects because the reliance on CSAPR for regional haze purposes in South Carolina already existed through a FIP. EPA notes that these proposed actions will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11824 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0644; FRL-9978-87-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Cleveland, PM2.5 Attainment Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 14, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the 2012 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS” or “standards”) for the Cleveland nonattainment area. As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA), OEPA developed an attainment plan to address the Cleveland nonattainment area and evaluate the area's ability to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the “Moderate” attainment date of December 31, 2021. The SIP submission addresses specific requirements as outlined in the CAA including: Attainment demonstration; reasonable available control measure (RACM) analysis; emissions inventory requirements; reasonable further progress (RFP) with quantitative milestones; and nonattainment new source review (NNSR). Additionally, the SIP submission includes optional PM2.5 precursor demonstrations for NNSR and attainment planning purposes. EPA has evaluated the SIP submission and is proposing to approve portions of the submission as meeting the applicable CAA requirements for RACM, emissions inventory, attainment demonstration modeling, and precursor insignificance demonstrations for NNSR and attainment planning purposes. EPA is not acting on the other elements of the submission, including reasonable further progress (RFP), with quantitative milestones, and motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0644 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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:

    Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS B. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP Requirements II. EPA's Evaluation of Submission III. EPA's Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action A. History of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 15, 2012, EPA promulgated the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, including a revision of the annual standard to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and maintaining the current 24-hour (or daily) standard of 35 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). EPA established the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating the serious health effects associated with exposures to PM2.5. The Cleveland, Ohio area was designated “Moderate” nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on ambient monitoring data showing that the area was above the 12.0 µg/m3 standard. At the time of designations, the Cleveland area had a design value of 12.5 µg/m3 for the 2011-2013 monitoring period (80 FR 2206, January 15, 2015).

    To provide guidance on the CAA requirements for state and tribal implementation plans to implement the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA promulgated the “Fine Particle Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule” (81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016) (hereinafter, the “PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule”). As part of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, EPA has interpreted the requirements of the CAA to allow the state to provide a “precursor demonstration” to EPA that supports the determination that one or more PM2.5 precursors need not be subject to control and planning requirements in a given nonattainment area. EPA has determined that sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) are precursors to PM, and thus the attainment plan requirements of subpart 4 initially apply equally to emissions of direct PM2.5 and all of its identified precursors. Section 189(e) of the CAA explicitly requires the control of major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, unless there is a demonstration to the satisfaction of the EPA Administrator that such major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to PM levels that exceed the standards in the area. Accordingly, a state can also provide a precursor demonstration for attainment planning purposes which finds that reducing a precursor does not significantly reduce PM2.5 concentrations, and therefore determines that controls are not needed for any sources of that precursor (not just major sources) for attainment purposes. EPA has long recognized the scientific basis for concluding that there are multiple precursors to PM10, and in particular to PM2.5 (Section III of Preamble of PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule).

    After Ohio's submission of the attainment plan by the CAA required date of October 14, 2016, EPA released a November 17, 2016 memorandum from Steve Page entitled “Draft PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance” (precursor guidance), which provides guidance to states on methods to evaluate if sources of a particular precursor contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels in the nonattainment area. The precursor guidance provides a detailed description of potential modeling approaches and presents possible thresholds to use in determining whether sources of a particular precursor contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels in the area. Although there is no explicit concentration which EPA has determined represents a significant contribution for PM2.5 precursor demonstrations, the precursor guidance suggests that a contribution level of 0.2 µg/m3, for annual average PM2.5, could be considered an air quality change that is “insignificant.” The specific methods and analysis utilized by Ohio regarding precursors are generally consistent with the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule and precursor guidance and are described in detail in the sections below regarding planning requirements and NNSR requirements.

    B. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP Requirements

    With respect to the requirements for an attainment plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the general CAA part D nonattainment area planning requirements are found in subpart 1, and the Moderate area planning requirements specifically for particulate matter are found in subpart 4.

    EPA utilizes a longstanding general guidance document that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA commonly referred to as the “General Preamble” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The General Preamble addresses the relationship between the subpart 1 and the subpart 4 requirements and provides recommendations to states for meeting statutory requirements for particulate matter attainment planning. Specifically, the General Preamble explains that requirements applicable to Moderate area attainment plan SIP submissions are set forth in subpart 4, but such SIP submissions must also meet the general attainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the extent these provisions “are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,” the more specific subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538). Additionally, EPA finalized the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule to clarify our interpretations of the statutory requirements that apply to Moderate and “Serious” PM2.5 nonattainment areas under subparts 1 and 4.

    The CAA requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (i) The section 172(c)(1) RACM/reasonably available control technology (RACT) and attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2) requirement to demonstrate RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3) requirement for emission inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5) requirements for a NNSR permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures.

    The CAA subpart 4 requirements for Moderate areas are generally comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) The section 189(a)(1)(A) NNSR permit program requirements; (ii) the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (iii) the section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c) requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. Section 189(e) also requires that states regulate major sources of PM2.5 precursors in a nonattainment area, unless EPA approves a demonstration excusing the state from regulating such sources. In addition, under subpart 4 Moderate areas must provide for attainment of the current PM2.5 annual standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the 6th calendar year after designation, which is December 31, 2021.

    II. EPA's Evaluation of the Submission

    OEPA, in coordination with the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), developed the attainment plan SIP submission for the Cleveland area. This plan was subsequently put through public process, adopted by the state, and submitted by the OEPA to EPA. This section describes the relevant contents of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS attainment plan SIP submission and EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the required SIP elements of RACM, attainment demonstration, emissions inventory, and precursor demonstrations for both NNSR and attainment planning purposes.

    The 2012 PM2.5 attainment plan contains SIP provisions to address the requirements for a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, including RACT/RACM, emissions inventory, modeling, attainment demonstration, transportation conformity and motor vehicle emissions budgets, RFP with quantitative milestones, and contingency measures. EPA is proposing to approve the RACM, emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, and precursor demonstrations for NNSR and attainment planning purposes, as fully meeting the requirements of the CAA and the applicable Federal regulations. Preliminary monitoring data indicate that the area is attaining the standard for the 2015-2017 design value period. If confirmed, certain planning requirements may be suspended per the clean data policy (40 CFR 51.1015(a)). EPA will continue to review other elements of the attainment plan submission in order to determine if they are necessary for the area to attain the standard and act on them accordingly.

    Emissions Inventory 1

    1 Note that this guidance was also updated in 2017. See “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations” (EPA-454/B-17-003, July 2017).

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires the development of an emissions inventory for nonattainment areas. In addition, the planning and associated modeling requirements set forth in CAA section 189(a) make the development of an accurate and up-to-date emissions inventory a critical element of any viable attainment plan. EPA guidance specifies the best practices for developing an emissions inventory for PM2.5 nonattainment areas per EPA's “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations” (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS SIP submission contains planning inventories of emission sources and emission rates for the base year of 2011 and the projected attainment year of 2021. OEPA selected the year 2011 as the base year because it is one of the three years for which air quality data was used to designate the area as nonattainment. Additionally, OEPA and LADCO determined that high-quality emissions information was already available from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011. LADCO developed the base year emissions inventory for the nonattainment area using the NEI, with additional information for on-road and nonroad mobile sources, marine, aircraft, and rail sources. Table 1 provides a summary of the annual 2011 emissions inventory for the Cleveland nonattainment area for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors.

    OEPA's submission included detailed information for the sources in the emissions inventory including facility name, ID, location, and emissions, as well as documentation on mobile source model inputs for both on-road and nonroad sources (See Docket submission and Appendix C).

    Table 1—Annual Emissions Inventory for Cleveland Area for Direct PM2.5 and Precursors [tpy] County/source sector PM2.5 Filterable Condensable NOX SO2 NH3 VOC Cuyahoga: Area (nonpoint) 1143.13 234.61 4989.24 188.94 670.62 12116.58 Marine, Aircraft, Rail (MAR) 96.88 0.02 2822.27 187.78 0.99 288.66 Nonroad 508.69 0.00 6045.40 17.35 8.66 8349.38 Onroad 800.00 0.00 18764.59 132.17 428.60 8568.15 Point EGU 32.90 33.50 771.22 1941.86 0.10 11.40 Point Non-EGU 599.48 407.26 2404.05 4461.80 65.87 986.52 Prescribed Fire 4.92 0.00 1.20 0.54 0.88 12.61 Lorain: Area (nonpoint) 477.68 72.00 844.19 44.37 448.73 2721.24 Marine, Aircraft, Rail (MAR) 44.39 0.00 1289.44 55.68 0.57 73.94 Nonroad 160.82 0.00 1971.11 5.39 2.66 3009.78 Onroad 195.49 0.00 4580.85 31.75 101.84 2177.01 Point EGU 94.90 298.62 4673.50 32041.30 0.54 31.82 Point Non-EGU 156.45 175.78 705.89 374.63 3.01 916.35 Prescribed Fire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4615.72 1521.80 49862.95 39483.56 1736.07 39263.44

    EPA has reviewed the base-year emissions inventory and finds that it satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual 2011 emissions of the relevant pollutants for PM2.5 in the Cleveland area. Thus, EPA proposes to approve the base year emissions inventory in the SIP submission.

    Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

    Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a PM2.5 Moderate area SIP contain either a demonstration that the plan will provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date, or a demonstration that attainment by such date is impracticable. In the attainment demonstration of the 2016 SIP submission, OEPA described how the attainment plan would provide for attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date of December 31, 2021.

    Using air quality modeling, an attainment demonstration must project that future air quality levels in the nonattainment area will be below the standard. OEPA and LADCO conducted modeling in accordance with EPA's April 2007 (and where appropriate, draft December 2014) “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze.” (attainment demonstration modeling guidance) (EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007). OEPA modeling is also consistent with the November 2005 Appendix W requirement used at the time by OEPA and is still consistent with the updated January 2017 (82 FR 5182) “Guideline on Air Quality Models.” (CFR Title 40, Part 51, Appendix W.) In addition, OEPA submitted a precursor demonstration that is consistent with the recommendations contained in EPA's precursor guidance document released in November 2016. (“PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration Guidance,” memorandum issued by Steven Page, Director of EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 17, 2016).

    Per the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the attainment demonstration modeling guidance provides recommendations that include: Developing a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed; developing a modeling/analysis protocol; selecting an appropriate model to support the demonstration; selecting appropriate meteorological episodes or time periods to model; choosing an appropriate area to model with appropriate horizontal/vertical resolution; generating meteorological and air quality inputs to the air quality model; generating emissions inputs to the air quality model; and, evaluating performance of the air quality model. After these steps are completed, the state can apply a model to simulate effects of future year emissions and candidate control strategies.

    OEPA and LADCO calculated the baseline design value for PM2.5 using the procedures contained in appendix N to 40 CFR 50, “Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” and EPA attainment demonstration modeling guidance. Ambient PM2.5 concentrations for the 2009-2013 time frame (a weighted average of the 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 design value periods, as recommended by the Modeling Guidance) were used to calculate baseline design values ranging from 9.64-12.82 µg/m3 for the seven PM2.5 monitoring locations in the nonattainment area (see Table 2). Detailed methods for the baseline design value calculations are in Appendix B of the 2016 SIP submission (See Docket).

    Next, OEPA and LADCO compiled base-year emission inventories (as discussed above) and projected emission inventories for the attainment year 2021. LADCO utilized emission inventories compiled by EPA for the years 2011, 2017, and 2025 as the starting point. EPA's 2011 emissions inventory (Version 2011eh) is based on the 2011 NEI, version 2 (2011NEIv2). The inventory uses hourly 2011 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data for electric generating units (EGUs) emissions, hourly on-road mobile emissions, and 2011 day-specific wild and prescribed fire data. Emissions include all criteria pollutants and precursors (CAPs), and a few hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). See EPA's Technical Support Document (EPA, 2015A) for a thorough description of the methodology used to develop the 2011 emissions inventory.

    EPA projected future emission inventories for the years 2017 and 2025 based on the 2011 baseline inventory. The future-year scenarios incorporate current “on-the-books” regulations, and do not include any additional measures or controls. See, EPA (2015A) for a thorough description of the methodology used to project future emissions. For most emissions categories, LADCO developed the 2021 future-year emissions inventory by interpolating between EPA's 2017 and 2025 inventories. The interpolation was done for each model species at each model cell for every model hour. However, LADCO developed updated 2021 EGU emissions by using the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee EGU Tool (ERTAC) and updated 2021 regional on-road mobile emissions using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) and Ramboll-Environ emissions (See Appendix B and C for detailed discussion).

    For EGU projections, Ohio and LADCO relied on the U.S. Energy Information Administration's “High Oil and Gas Resource” (See Docket for detailed discussion). The projected emissions inventory not only accounts for growth in economic sectors, but also includes emissions controls (existing or future regulations) that will impact sources in the area. In this case, OEPA and LADCO only modeled controls that have been promulgated, with no new future controls being added since OEPA has determined that additional RACT and RACM would not be necessary for expeditious attainment, and that current controls in the area are sufficient to meet the RACM requirement. For modeling purposes no additional RACM/RACT was applied to future year inventories.

    The base-year and projected emission inventories were used in a photochemical grid model, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx), to project the expected change from base-year to future year design values. The modeled attainment demonstration results in a predicted future-year concentration at each PM2.5 ambient monitor location within the Cleveland nonattainment area. The results from the CAMx modeling were then used as inputs to EPA's Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) to calculate the design values for each monitored location in the attainment year 2021 using information on current PM2.5 speciation. Modeled attainment year results show that the area is expected to meet the standard (all 2021 values at existing monitor locations are below 12.0 μg/m3) by the 2021 attainment date (See Table 2).

    Table 2—Projected PM2.5 Design Values (μg/m 3) for 2021 County Monitor ID 2011 Baseline design value 2021
  • Projected
  • design value
  • Cuyahoga 39-035-0034 10.02 8.07 39-035-0038 12.82 10.69 39-035-0045 11.99 9.84 39-035-0060 12.79 10.45 39-035-0065 12.49 10.32 39-035-1002 10.36 8.41 Lorain 39-093-3002 9.64 8.08

    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to approve OEPA's demonstration of attainment for 2021 as meeting the statutory requirement in CAA 189(a)(1)(B).

    RACM/RACT Requirements

    The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 include CAA section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation of all RACM (including RACT). Section 172(c)(1) requires that attainment plans provide for the implementation of RACM (including RACT) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, what constitutes RACM and RACT is related to what is necessary for attainment, as well as expeditious attainment, in a given area.

    Subpart 4 also requires states to develop attainment plans that evaluate potential control measures and impose RACM and RACT on sources within a Moderate nonattainment area that are necessary to expeditiously attain the NAAQS. Specifically, CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires that Moderate nonattainment plans provide for implementation of RACM and RACT no later than four years after the area is designated as nonattainment. As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are not defined within subpart 4. Nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, EPA's longstanding guidance in the General Preamble provides recommendations for determining which control measures constitute RACM and RACT for purposes of meeting the statutory requirements of subpart 4 (57 FR 13540-13541).

    For both RACM and RACT, EPA notes that an overarching principle is that if a given control measure is not needed to attain the relevant NAAQS in a given area as expeditiously as practicable, then that control measure would not be required as RACM or RACT because it would not be reasonable to impose controls that are not in fact needed for attainment purposes. Accordingly, a RACM and RACT analysis is a process to identify emission sources, evaluate potential emission controls, and impose those control measures and technologies that are reasonable and necessary to bring the area into attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the statutory attainment date for the area.

    EPA has long applied a policy that states must evaluate the combined effect of reasonably available control measures that, if implemented collectively, would advance the attainment date by at least one year and should be adopted. Since the area's preliminary data indicate that it will attain the NAAQs based on the 2015-2017 design value period, it is not necessary to implement additional controls. The data indicates that the area is attaining the standard with current Federal, state, and local permanent and enforceable measures.

    OEPA provided a RACM and RACT analysis in Appendix E of the 2012 PM2.5 attainment plan SIP submission. Ohio has found that existing measures for PM2.5, SO2 and NOX for area sources, mobile sources and stationary sources constitute RACT/RACM (80 FR 68253; 81 FR 58402; 82 FR 16938). Some of the current controls for the area that are sufficient to meet the RACM/RACT requirement include: Existing PM2.5 and ozone RACT rules, mobile source controls, SO2 reductions from 2010 SO2 nonattainment areas including a large EGU in neighboring Lake County, Federal interstate transport rules, and regional haze.

    OEPA provided an attainment analysis that consisted of: First, a modeling demonstration that the area would attain by the attainment date in 2021 with current on-the-books controls and measures; and second, a demonstration showing that by interpolating modeled future values from 2021 with 2016 design values at the monitored sites, the area would be attaining the standard in both 2020 (at 11.0 μg/m3) and 2019 (at 11.3 μg/m3) at the design value monitor prior to the 2021 statutory attainment date. The interpolation suggested that the area would attain at the end of 2017, similar to EPA modeling analysis discussed below, and is now verified by the preliminary 2015-2017 design values that indicate the area is likely attaining as of the end of 2017. In addition, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule outlines the option for states to do an additional modeling demonstration to show that specific PM2.5 precursors are not significant contributors to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area. OEPA provided a precursor demonstration modeling analysis that was intended to demonstrate that emissions of NH3 and VOC are not significant PM2.5 precursors for attainment planning purposes.

    Precursor Demonstration for Attainment Planning Purposes

    For the precursor demonstration, OEPA and LADCO initially performed a “concentration-based” contribution analysis using speciated monitoring data to determine whether NH3 or VOC contribute significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in the area, based on monitored values alone. However, using the assumption suggested in the draft precursor demonstration guidance that all NH3 emissions are associated with the nitrate portion of PM2.5 mass, and that all VOC emissions are associated with the organic carbon portion of PM2.5 mass, the state could not determine that these precursors did not make a significant contribution.

    Therefore, the state proceeded with a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of reducing NH3 and VOC emissions on PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. OEPA and LADCO performed a modeled sensitivity analysis for attainment planning purposes using the 2021 attainment year concentrations at each monitor in the Cleveland area. LADCO applied a 40% emission reduction to anthropogenic sources of NH3 and VOC emissions for all source categories in the Cleveland nonattainment area. The OEPA submission indicated that the 40% comprehensive reduction was chosen because it was within the range of a previously published, comprehensive sensitivity analysis done in photochemical modeling which typically uses 30-50% when applying the reduction across all emission sectors—as done for this analysis.2

    2 EPA examined examples in the published literature of general sensitivity modeling studies that look at the impact of across-the-board percentage reductions in precursor emissions on secondary pollutants (including PM2.5, PM10, and ozone) (Vieno, 2016; Megaritis, 2013; Harrison, 2013; Derwent, 2014; Liu, 2010; Pun, 2001). The majority of studies have used across the board percentage precursor emissions reductions of between 30% and 60%, with the most common reduction percentages being 30% and 50%.

    The submission was made by the state prior to the date that the precursor guidance was issued by EPA; however, the modeled reduction levels are still within the suggested range of 30-70% reductions found in the precursor guidance.

    The results of the 2021 attainment planning sensitivity analyses show modeled impacts from reducing NH3 by 40% on PM2.5 concentrations at the monitors ranging from 0.10-0.21 µg/m3, and modeled impacts from reducing VOC ranging from 0.0-0.01 µg/m3. Although there is no explicit concentration which EPA has determined represents a significant contribution, the current draft precursor guidance suggests that a contribution level of 0.2 µg/m3 is an appropriate recommended threshold to identify an air quality change that is “insignificant” for annual average PM2.5. In this case, all modeled impacts for VOC emissions are well below the recommended threshold, and most of the modeled NH3 impacts are at or below the threshold as well, with only one ambient air quality monitor showing modeled ambient PM2.5 levels slightly above the recommended threshold (at 0.21 µg/m3).

    EPA's precursor guidance noted that there may be cases where precursor emissions have an impact above the recommended contribution thresholds, yet do not “significantly contribute” to levels that exceed the standard in the area (pursuant to section 189(e)). Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the significance of a precursor's contribution is to be determined “based on the facts and circumstances of the area.” Air agencies may thus provide EPA with information related to other factors they believe should be considered in determining whether the contribution of emissions of a particular precursor to levels that exceed the NAAQS is “significant” or not. Such factors may include: The amount by which a precursor's contribution exceeds the recommended contribution thresholds; the severity of nonattainment at relevant monitors and/or grid cell locations in the area; trends in ambient speciation data and precursor emissions; and any other relevant information.

    Based on a number of factors, in this case EPA believes that NH3 is not a significant precursor. The relevant factors include: The magnitude of the amount above the threshold is small compared to the total threshold amount (5% of the total threshold amount); the area continues to trend downward in both ambient monitoring data and emissions in direct PM2.5 and precursors; current preliminary monitoring data shows the area is attaining the standard; and additionally, this small amount of PM2.5 resulting from NH3 would not interfere with the area's ability to attain the standard, as evidenced by the fact that the preliminary 2015-2017 design value is 0.7 µg/m3 below the NAAQS. Regardless of the finding of significance for these precursors, the area is expected to attain (based on preliminary design values) with only current controls in place, and it would not be required to control any sources further. Additionally, the area has preliminary 2015-2017 data indicating that it has a three-year design value below the level of the NAAQS, so that any additional controls would not be implemented until well after the area has attained the standard.

    Based on the above, EPA agrees with the determination by Ohio that for attainment planning purposes, additional controls on existing sources of NH3 and VOC emissions do not need to be imposed.

    RACM/RACT Analysis

    OEPA conducted a six-step RACM analysis that focused on direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2: (1) Identify sources in the area for PM2.5, NOX, and SO2—that comprised over 90% of the emissions for each pollutant over all source categories; (2) identify potential control measures; (3) evaluate technological feasibility; (4) evaluate economic feasibility; (5) determine if the measures can be implemented within both four and five years; (6) evaluate the earliest practical year for attainment.

    As detailed in OEPA's RACT/RACM analysis in Appendix E, many of the sources are already well controlled. The state then identified current controls for each source as well as any additional measures or controls that are potentially available to each of the identified sources using EPA's “Menu of Control Measures” document, available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html and the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) at http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/. OEPA then determined if any of the identified controls were technologically or economically feasible using EPA's the method outlined in the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, which can include factors such as a source's process and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution, waste disposal and energy requirements (see 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(3)(i)).

    In regard to area and mobile sources, a state may tailor the analysis to the considerations that are relevant to the local circumstances, such as the condition and extent of needed infrastructure, population size, and workforce type and habits, all of which may impact the availability of potential control measures in the area. (81 FR 58010)

    OEPA also determined economic feasibility of each identified measure or technology. That analysis included consideration of the cost of reducing emissions in the area and the difference between the cost of an emissions reduction measure at a particular source in the area and the cost of emissions reduction measures that have been implemented at similar sources in the same or other areas.

    OEPA determined that the technologically feasible measures that were identified were not economically feasible. For example, the state determined that the cost-effectiveness ranged from $5800 per ton to more than $40,000 per ton for measures that were found to be technologically feasible for major stationary sources. In addition, the highest costs of reductions were generally linked to controls of direct PM2.5, and OEPA has determined that reductions in direct PM2.5 would be the most effective at reducing the monitored concentrations in the Cleveland area. Thus, the state found that the most effective controls are not reasonable to implement based on cost.

    Finally, OEPA analyzed the implementation time frame of controls within four years and the earliest applicable attainment date, which by interpolation would be the end of 2017, and determined that the area would attain the standard prior to the state rulemaking and implementation of additional controls in the area. In fact, the area has preliminary 2015-2017 data indicating that it has a three-year design value below the level of the NAAQS, making implementation of additional controls to achieve attainment moot.

    As noted by OEPA, both the Federal and state “on the books” controls have led to additional control and will lead to additional emissions reductions in the future. Because of the historic nonattainment status of this area for both ozone and PM2.5, the Cleveland nonattainment area is one of the most well controlled areas in the state for pollutants contributing to formation of both PM2.5 and ozone. Ohio's current rules, current controls and the Federal “on the books” controls continue to satisfy RACT/RACM for the annual PM2.5 standard. Some of the current controls that are sufficient to meet the RACT/RACM requirement are Ohio's current RACT program found in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17, which controls NOX; rules under OAC Chapter 3745-18 which control SO2 sources for the state; and the inspection and maintenance program contained in OAC Chapter 3745-26, which reduces emissions of NOX and VOC from on-road vehicles. OEPA has determined that no additional controls are feasible to implement as RACM/RACT in the Cleveland area, and that current controls meet the requirement for RACM under 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C).

    EPA finds OEPA's determination reasonable, and is proposing to approve OEPA's determination that current controls meet the RACM/RACT requirement and that additional controls are not reasonable for other sources in the area or necessary to expeditiously attain the NAAQS.

    As noted above, the attainment demonstration modeling analysis reflecting 2021 projected emissions based on only current controls shows that projected 2021 air quality values at monitoring sites in the area range from 8.07-10.69 µg/m3, well below the standard. Monitoring data for the 2014-2016 design values show only one monitor in the area is above the standard at 12.2 µg/m3, and is trending downward. Interpolation between current and projected monitor values indicates that the area is likely to attain the standard with current controls by the end of the 2017 calendar year. Current, preliminary monitored design values for the years 2015-2017 shows the highest values being monitored in the Cleveland area is 11.3 μg/m3. EPA also conducted modeling in 2015 in support of regulatory initiatives regarding the revised ozone NAAQS and interstate transport (Appendix B), and these analyses also indicate that the Cleveland area will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS well before the outermost attainment date of December 31, 2021.

    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that current controls on sources in the nonattainment area meet the requirements of section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve current controls: Federal mobile source standards, transport rules, Regional Haze plans, and state VOC RACT rules as meeting the RACM/RACT provisions.

    Nonattainment NSR Precursor Demonstration

    In addition to the attainment planning precursor demonstrations, which showed that neither existing sources of VOC nor existing sources of NH3 have a significant contribution to PM2.5 concentrations, OEPA provided an analysis for both VOC and NH3 intended to show that increases in emissions of these precursors that may result from new or modified sources would not make a significant contribution to PM2.5 concentrations in the area. This demonstration is intended to justify the state's determination that major stationary sources of these precursors do not need to be regulated under the NNSR program for the area. For NNSR permitting purposes, CAA section 189(e), as interpreted by the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, provides an option for the state to provide a precursor demonstration intended to show that increases in emissions from potential new and existing major stationary sources of a particular precursor would not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in a particular nonattainment area. 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3). In particular, EPA's regulations provide that a state choosing to submit an NNSR precursor demonstration should evaluate the sensitivity of PM2.5 levels in the nonattainment area to an increase in emissions of the precursor. If the state demonstrates that the estimated air quality changes determined through such an analysis are not significant, based on the facts and circumstances of the area, the state may use this information to identify new major stationary sources and major modifications of a precursor that will not be considered to contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the nonattainment area under CAA section 189(e). Id. 51.1006(a)(3)(i). If EPA approves the state's NNSR precursor demonstration for a nonattainment area, major sources of the relevant precursor can be exempted from the NNSR major source permitting requirements for PM2.5 with respect to that precursor. Id. 51.1006(a)(3)(ii).

    For NNSR permitting purposes, sensitivity analyses examine potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the area resulting from a given set of precursor emission increases from one or more new or modified stationary sources. Ohio's 2011 and 2021 comprehensive modeling inventories were used for this analysis. To help determine a theoretical growth scenario as a result of major source expansion (new or modified), Ohio first prepared inventories for VOC and NH3 for 2008 to 2014 for the entire State from Ohio's annual emissions reporting program. Ohio used inventories for the entire State in order to determine what types of major sources/source categories are likely to expand (new or modified) within the Cleveland area and at what magnitude (tons per year) those expansions are likely to occur. These inventories and the full detailed analysis are contained in Appendix F of Ohio's submission.

    Consistent with EPA's regulation and draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO have performed sensitivity analyses of potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area (including unmonitored areas) resulting from a given set of hypothetical NH3 or VOC precursor emission increases from modified major stationary sources of the respective precursors in the nonattainment area. The inventories and the full detailed analysis are contained in Appendix F of Ohio's submission. For the NH3 analysis, Ohio assumed emissions increases at three existing locations of NH3 in the area, as these would be the most likely future areas of growth in the Cleveland area. EPA believes that the use of the historical inventories to predict growth is reflective of the future potential increases specific to the Cleveland area given the current types of facilities and their respective locations, the urban density and ability to expand or build, as well as the types of state regulation or other Federal requirements (such as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) on facility types and controls required for other pollutants. EPA believes that this is an acceptable approach to estimating potential future growth.

    In addition to the modeled emissions increases based on historical growth at sources, LADCO and OEPA did an additional NH3 modeling analysis (submitted July 18, 2017) based on a 100 tpy emissions increase (to represent major sources) in each modeled grid cell in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that this is a sufficiently conservative analysis that exceeds the level of actual potential NH3 emissions growth likely to occur in the area. Both of these approaches are consistent with suggested modeling in EPA's precursor guidance. Thus, EPA finds that this analysis serves as a reasonable evaluation of the sensitivity of PM2.5 concentrations to a large emissions increase across the spatial area.

    For the VOC analysis, Ohio added 1,486 tpy of VOC emissions at 3 existing source locations where VOC emissions increases potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a 75% increase in VOC emissions from existing stationary sources (EGU and non-EGU). Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents an 80% increase in stationary source emissions. For the NH3 analysis, Ohio added 325 tpy of NH3 emissions (scenario 1) to 3 existing source locations where NH3 emissions increases potentially could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a 447% increase in NH3 emissions from existing stationary sources. Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents a 449% increase in NH3 from stationary sources. The additional NH3 analysis (scenario 2) had a total emissions increase of 1,700 tpy, which is over 500% higher growth than the historical NH3 growth (scenario 1).

    Ohio found the addition of the NH3 emissions (approximately 350 tpy) into the model based on historical growth (scenario 1) would result in a peak impact of 0.08 μg/m3, and the addition of the above VOC emissions would result in a peak impact of 0.02 μg/m3. The modeled impacts are well below the recommended significance contribution threshold of 0.2 μg/m3; for VOC it is an order of magnitude difference, and for NH3 the maximum value is less than half the recommended significant contribution threshold level. The results of NH3 modeling for scenario 2 indicate that, even with a conservatively large NH3 increase, the maximum impact was 0.24 μg/m3, which is only slightly above the recommended contribution threshold of 0.2 μg/m3.

    While the increase is slightly above the recommended contribution threshold, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that NH3 emissions from major stationary sources (in the context of a NNSR precursor demonstration) do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area for the following reasons: Historical growth of NH3 sources in the area are significantly less than what was modeled for scenario 2; the only likely future increases of NH3 emissions from major sources in the area are from the increased use of NH3 for EGU NOX control (ammonia slip) and would likely occur at existing EGUs (as modeled in scenario 1); the area continues to trend downward in both monitored PM2.5 concentrations and PM2.5 (direct and precursor) emissions; current preliminary monitoring data shows the area is attaining the standard; and, this small amount of additional ambient PM2.5 concentration, based on the modeling analysis, would therefore not interfere with the area's ability to attain the standard given that the current preliminary design value for 2015-2017 is 11.3 μg/m3; and the additional modeled increase of 0.24 μg/m3 would not impact the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.

    Based on the results of the modeling demonstration and the additional factors described in this section, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's determination that emissions increases of either VOC or NH3 from new and modified major stationary sources would not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Cleveland nonattainment area. Accordingly, new or modified major sources of VOC and NH3 may be exempted from the state's NNSR program requirements for PM2.5 in the Cleveland PM2.5 nonattainment area.

    III. EPA's Proposed Action

    Ohio's attainment demonstration modeling, and precursor analysis for both attainment planning RACM and nonattainment NNSR determined that VOCs and NH3 do not significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the area. EPA finds that Ohio's analysis is reasonable and well supported. EPA is thus proposing to approve the following elements of the 2012 SIP submission: The base year 2011 emissions inventory to meet the section 172(c)(3) requirement for emission inventories; the demonstration of attainment for 2021 as meeting the statutory requirement in CAA 189(a)(1)(B); current controls as meeting RACM requirements of 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1(C).

    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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 21, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11748 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0099; FRL-9978-26—Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Consumer Products and Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. The SIP revision amends requirements for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products and architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings by revising Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) sections 22a-174-40, 22a-174-41, and adding section 22a-174-41a. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of these regulations into the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0099 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact 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 legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1584, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background and Purpose II. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal III. Proposed Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    In the summer of 2011, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) updated its Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Model Rule, and in the spring of 2013, OTC updated its Consumer Products Model Rule. Connecticut subsequently revised its regulations at RCSA section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” and section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 1,” and added section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 2,” which all became effective in the State of Connecticut on October 5, 2017. Connecticut submitted these regulations to EPA in a SIP revision dated October 18, 2017.

    EPA last approved Connecticut's RCSA section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” into the Connecticut SIP on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32873) and last approved RCSA section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products,” into the Connecticut SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50595).

    II. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal

    Connecticut revised section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” is based on the 2013 OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products. Connecticut's rule contains limits for more categories of consumer products than EPA's National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products rule at 40 CFR part 59 subpart C (63 FR 48831, September 11, 1998). The regulation limits are also equal to, or more stringent than, those found in EPA's consumer products rule.

    The consumer products listed in Section 22a-174-40 include items sold to retail consumers for household or automotive use, as well as products used in commercial and institutional settings, such as beauty shops, schools and hospitals. The regulation has VOC content limits for over one hundred categories. In addition to the VOC emissions limits, the regulation includes: Limits on toxic contaminants in antiperspirants and deodorants and other consumer products; requirements for charcoal lighter materials, aerosol adhesives and floor wax strippers; requirements for products containing ozone-depleting compounds; product labeling requirements; and record keeping, reporting and testing requirements.

    Connecticut revised RCSA section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products” renaming the section “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 1,” and changing its applicability to only regulate AIM coatings manufactured through April 30, 2018. For AIM coatings manufactured on and after May 1, 2018, Connecticut added a new section 22a-174-41a “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 2,” which contains a number of new coating categories and reduced VOC content limits for some existing coating categories, consistent with the 2011 OTC AIM model rule. The limits in the Connecticut AIM rules remain as stringent as, or more stringent than, those contained in the EPA's AIM rule at 40 CFR part 59 Subpart D (63 FR 48848; September 11, 1998).

    Connecticut's revised RCSA sections 22a-174-40, 22a-174-41, and new section 22a-174-41a include additional and more stringent VOC emission controls than the previous SIP-approved version of the consumer product and AIM rules. Thus, the SIP revision satisfies the requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA because the revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve Connecticut's revised regulations into the Connecticut SIP.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate into the Connecticut SIP revised RCSA section 22a-174-40, “Consumer Products,” revised section 22a-174-41, “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 1,” and new section 22a-174-41a “Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Products—Phase 2,” all of which became effective in the State of Connecticut on October 5, 2017.

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Connecticut RCSA sections 22a-174-40, 22a-174-41, and 22a-174-41a. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11596 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109; FRL-9978-72-Region 8] Interstate Transport Prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Standard for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport SIP requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These submissions address the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is proposing to approve portions of these infrastructure SIPs for the aforementioned states as containing adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in the states will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0109 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. EPA Region 8, (303) 312-7104, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs III. States' Submissions and EPA's Analysis A. Colorado 1. State's Analysis 2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation 3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation B. Montana 1. State's Analysis 2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation 3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation C. North Dakota 1. State's Analysis 2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation 3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation D. South Dakota 1. State's Analysis 2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation 3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation E. Wyoming 1. State's Analysis 2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation 3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.1 The CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the applicable “infrastructure” elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain “good neighbor” provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution.

    1 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2 portions of infrastructure SIP submissions submitted by: Colorado on July 17, 2013 and February 16, 2018; Montana on July 15, 2013; North Dakota on March 7, 2013; South Dakota on December 20, 2013; and Wyoming on March 6, 2015, as containing adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in these states will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been addressed in separate rulemakings.

    II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone, in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However, ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than emissions of Pb, but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches that the EPA has adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused and the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source. SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.

    Given the physical properties of SO2, the EPA selected the “urban scale”—a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km) from point sources—given the usefulness of that range in assessing trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.2 As such, the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind states.

    2 For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, please see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (“Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria”). For further discussion on how the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 2017).

    As discussed in Section III of this proposed action, the EPA first reviewed each state's analysis to assess how the state evaluated the transport of SO2 to other states, the types of information used in the analysis and the conclusions drawn by the state. The EPA then conducted a weight of evidence analysis, including review of each state's submission and other available information, including air quality, emission sources and emission trends within the state and in neighboring states to which it could potentially contribute or interfere.3

    3 This proposed approval action is based on the information contained in the administrative record for this action, and does not prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times. Future available information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and third party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.

    III. States' Submissions and EPA's Analysis

    In this section, we provide an overview of each state's 2010 SO2 transport analysis, as well as the EPA's evaluation of prongs 1 and 2 for each state. Table 1, below, shows emission trends for the five states addressed in this notice along with their neighboring states. The table will be referenced as part of the EPA's analysis for each state.4

    4 This emissions trends information was derived from EPA's webpage https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

    Table 1—SO2 Emission Trends State 2000 2005 2010 2016 SO2 reduction,
  • 2000-2016
  • (%)
  • Arizona 118,528 90,577 73,075 38,089 68 Colorado 115,122 80,468 60,459 20,626 82 Idaho 34,525 35,451 14,774 10,051 70 Iowa 265,005 222,419 142,738 48,776 81 Kansas 148,416 199,006 80,267 16,054 89 Minnesota 148,899 156,468 85,254 34,219 77 Montana 57,517 42,085 26,869 12,379 78 Nebraska 86,894 121,785 77,898 40,964 52 New Mexico 164,631 47,671 23,651 15,529 90 North Dakota 275,138 159,221 199,322 152,505 44 Oklahoma 145,862 169,464 136,348 73,006 50 South Dakota 41,120 28,579 16,202 2,642 93 Utah 58,040 52,998 29,776 15,226 73 Wyoming 141,439 122,453 91,022 57,313 59
    A. Colorado 1. State's Analysis

    Colorado conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from Colorado adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Colorado evaluated potential air quality impacts on areas outside the State through an assessment of whether SO2 emissions from sources located within 50 km of Colorado's borders may have associated interstate transport impacts. Colorado's analysis included SO2 emissions information in the State, with specific focus on sources and counties located within 50 km of Colorado's borders. Among these sources, Colorado provided an in-depth analysis of the two sources emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2; the Nucla Generating Station (47 km east of Utah border) and Rawhide Energy Station (15 km south of Wyoming border). Colorado also reviewed meteorological conditions at SO2 sources within 50 km of the State's border, and the distances from identified SO2 sources in Colorado to the nearest area that is not attaining the NAAQS or may have trouble maintaining the NAAQS in another state. Finally, Colorado reviewed mobile source emissions data from highway and off-highway vehicles in all of the Colorado counties which border other states. Based on this weight of evidence analysis, Colorado concluded that emissions within the State will not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.

    2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation

    The EPA proposes to find that Colorado's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air quality, emission sources and emission trends in Colorado and neighboring states, i.e., Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Based on that analysis, we propose to find that Colorado will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    We reviewed 2014-2016 SO2 design value concentrations at monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values for Colorado and neighboring states.5 In Table 2, below, we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the monitor data from Colorado; (2) the monitor with the highest SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Colorado border; and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the border.

    5 Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

    Table 2—SO2 Monitor Values in Colorado and Neighboring States State/area Scenario Site ID Distance to Colorado
  • border
  • (km) *
  • 2014-2016 Design
  • value
  • (ppb) 6
  • Arizona/Miami 3 040070009 432 146 Arizona/Hayden 2 040071001 470 280 Colorado/Denver 1 080013001 127 18 Colorado/Denver 1 080310002 138 12 Colorado/Denver 1 080310026 135 14 Colorado/Colorado Springs 1 080410015 203 52 Kansas/Trego County 3 201950001 198 5 Kansas/Kansas City 2 202090021 640 34 Nebraska/Omaha 2 310550053 515 59 Nebraska/Omaha 3 310550019 676 27 New Mexico/Fruitland 4 350450009 28 3 New Mexico/Waterflow 2, 3, 4 350451005 22 8 Oklahoma/Muskogee 2 401010167 618 44 Oklahoma/Oklahoma City 3 401091037 437 3 Wyoming/Cheyenne 3, 4 560210100 20 9 Wyoming/Casper 2 560252601 206 25 * All distances throughout this notice are approximations.

    The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Colorado and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Colorado border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission sources near any given monitor. As shown, there are no violating design values in Colorado or neighboring states apart from in the Hayden, Arizona and Miami, Arizona areas. In Colorado's analysis, the state reviewed its potential impact on the Hayden and Miami, Arizona 2010 SO2 nonattainment areas, which are the only areas designated nonattainment in states bordering Colorado. Colorado noted the significant distance between its border and these nonattainment areas, as well as the larger distance between the nonattainment areas to the nearest major SO2 source in Colorado (Nucla Generating Station—582 km).

    6 Id.

    The data presented in Table 2, above, show that Colorado's network of SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values indicates that monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in Colorado are between 16% and 69% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS. As shown, there are no Colorado monitors located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border. Three monitors in neighboring states are located within 50 km of the Colorado border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values ranging between 4% and 12% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented analysis.

    As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Colorado in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Colorado assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air quality. The list of sources of 100 tpy 7 or more of SO2 within 50 km from state borders, provided by Colorado, is shown in Table 3 below.

    7 Colorado limited its analysis to Colorado sources of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy. We agree with Colorado's choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical factors, Colorado sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.

    Table 3—Colorado SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States Colorado source 2016 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons) *
  • Distance to
  • Colorado
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to nearest neighboring
  • state SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Neighboring
  • state source
  • 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Nucla Generating Station 439 47 68 (Lisbon Natural Gas Processing Plant—San Juan County, Utah) 499 Rawhide Energy Station 878 15 35 (Frontier Petroleum Refinery—Cheyenne, Wyoming) 311 * Emissions data throughout this document were obtained using EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway.

    Table 3 shows the distance from the sources listed therein to the nearest out-of-state source emitting above 100 tpy of SO2, because elevated levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Colorado may have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. In the case of the Nucla Generating Station, the distance between this source and the Colorado-Utah state border (47 km) and the nearest major SO2 source in neighboring state Utah (68 km), indicate that emissions from Colorado are very unlikely to contribute significantly to problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in Utah. The EPA notes that Colorado recently revised the Nucla Generating Station NOX reasonable progress determination in its regional haze SIP to require the source to shut down before December 31, 2022, and the EPA has proposed approval of this SIP revision. See 83 FR 18244 (April 26, 2018).

    With regard to the Rawhide Energy Station, because it is located within 50 km of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery in Cheyenne, Wyoming, the EPA has assessed potential SO2 impacts from the Rawhide Energy Station on the Cheyenne area. First, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data in Cheyenne, Wyoming, 6 km northeast of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery. The 2014-2016 SO2 design value for this monitor (Site ID 560210100—See Table 2) was 9 ppb. The maximum 1-hour SO2 value measured at this monitor from January 1, 2011, (when it began operation) to December 31, 2017, was 31 ppb. A second monitor not listed in Table 2, located 3 km east of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery, recorded 1 year of data in Cheyenne to examine potential population exposure near the refinery.8 Between March 31, 2016, and April 3, 2017, this monitor recorded a maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration of 44 ppb, with a fourth highest 1-hour daily maximum concentration of 16.7 ppb. All of these monitoring data combined indicate that SO2 levels in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and therefore near the Frontier Petroleum Refinery, are not likely to exceed the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or come near the level of a NAAQS exceedance.

    8 See Wyoming's 2016 Annual Monitoring Network Plan at pages 50-51: http://deq.wyoming.gov/aqd/monitoring/resources/annual-network-plans/.

    The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km of the Colorado border (see Table 4). This is because elevated levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Colorado may have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. As shown in Table 4, the shortest distance between any pair of these sources is 84 km. Given the localized range of potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, this indicates that there are no additional locations (apart from Cheyenne) in neighboring states that would warrant further investigation with respect to Colorado SO2 emission sources that might contribute to problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Hayden and Miami, Arizona 2010 SO2 nonattainment areas, which Colorado reviewed as part of its analysis, are over 400 km from the nearest Colorado border and so were not included in Table 4. Colorado asserted that the significant distance between its border and these nonattainment areas indicates that it is highly unlikely that SO2 emissions generated in Colorado are contributing significantly to either nonattainment area in Arizona, and the EPA agrees with this conclusion.

    Table 4—Neighboring State SO2 Sources Near Colorado* Source 2016 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Distance to
  • Colorado
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to nearest
  • Colorado SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Colorado
  • source 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • San Juan Generating Station (Waterflow, New Mexico) 2,913 22 160 (Nucla Generating Station—Nucla, Colorado) 439 Four Corners Steam Electric Station (Navajo Nation) 4,412 34 172 (Nucla Generating Station—Nucla, Colorado) 439 Bonanza Power Plant (Uintah and Ouray Reservation) 1,305 20 84 (Meeker Gas Plant—Rio Blanco County, Colorado) 210 Resolute Natural Resources Company—Aneth Unit (Navajo Nation) 118 19 124 (Nucla Generating Station—Nucla, Colorado) 439 Clean Harbors Env. Services (Kimball County, Nebraska) 218 17 104 (Pawnee Generating Station—Fort Morgan, Colorado) 1,493 * We have not included sources that are duplicative of those in Table 3.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission sources both within Colorado and in neighboring states. Based on this analysis, we propose to determine that Colorado will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation

    In its prong 2 analysis, Colorado reviewed potential SO2 impacts on the Billings, Montana area, which is currently in “maintenance” status for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, noting the large distance between the nearest Colorado border and the Billings area (520 km). The EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment, and thus current maintenance, areas. Therefore, in addition to the analysis presented by Colorado, the EPA has also reviewed additional information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Colorado will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in Colorado and neighboring states, and the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the EPA is proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near the Colorado border do not indicate any inability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in Colorado.

    As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO2 emissions from Colorado and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per our review of the EPA's emissions trends data.9 From 2000 to 2016, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by the following proportions: Arizona (68% decrease), Colorado (82% decrease), Kansas (89% decrease), Nebraska (52% decrease), New Mexico (90% decrease), Utah (73% decrease) and Wyoming (59% decrease). This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Colorado and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these reductions suggest that there is very low likelihood that a strong upward trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to violate the NAAQS.

    9 Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

    As noted in Colorado's submission, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Colorado's SIP-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.10 Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Colorado's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.11 The permitting regulations contained within these programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of new facility construction or modification occurring in Colorado.

    10 See EPA's final action of the PSD portions of Colorado's SIP, at 82 FR 39030, August 17, 2017.

    11 Id.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Colorado and neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in SO2 emissions from Colorado and neighboring states, and state measures that prevent new facility construction or modification in Colorado from causing SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from Colorado. Accordingly, we propose to determine that Colorado SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    B. Montana 1. State's Analysis

    Montana relied on existing programs to assert that SO2 emissions from Montana will not adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Montana noted that sources within the State are subject to new source review and Montana Air Quality Permit (MAQP) requirements, as well as applicable Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and asserted that these requirements along with additional portions of Montana's SIP prevent sources within the State from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.

    2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation

    The EPA proposes to find that Montana's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air quality, emission sources and emission trends in Montana and neighboring states, i.e., Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Based on that analysis, we propose to find that Montana will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    We reviewed 2014-2016 SO2 design value concentrations at monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values for Montana and neighboring states.12 In Table 5, below, we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the monitor data from Montana; (2) the monitor with the highest SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Montana border; and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the border.

    12 Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

    Table 5—SO2 Monitor Values in Montana and Neighboring States State/area Scenario Site ID Distance to
  • Montana
  • border
  • (km)
  • 2014-2016
  • design value
  • (ppb)
  • Idaho/Pocatello 2, 3 160050004 162 39 Montana/Helena 1 300490004 178 2 Montana/Richland County 1 300830001 33 7 Montana/Billings 1 301110066 87 53 North Dakota/Dickinson 4 380070002 50 5 North Dakota/Burke County 2 380130004 120 23 North Dakota/McKenzie County 4 380530104 5 6 North Dakota/McKenzie County 4 380530111 2 7 South Dakota/Sioux Falls 2 460990008 608 6 South Dakota/Rapid City 3 461030020 118 4 Wyoming/Gillette 3 560050857 80 21 Wyoming/Casper 2 560252601 236 25

    The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Montana and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Montana border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission sources near any given monitor. The data presented in Table 5, above, show that Montana's network of SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values indicates that monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in Montana are between 2% and 70% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS. There is one Montana monitor located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border, and this monitor indicates a design value at 9% of the NAAQS. Three monitors in neighboring states are located within 50 km of the Montana border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values ranging between 6% and 9% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented analysis.

    As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Montana in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air quality, and determined that there are no such sources in Montana. The CHS Laurel Refinery, located 74 km north of the Wyoming border, is the Montana point source closest to another state's border. The large distances between Montana sources and the nearest neighboring state provide further evidence to support a conclusion that emissions from Montana will not contribute to problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.

    The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy 13 of SO2 and located within 50 km of the Montana border (see Table 6). This is because elevated levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Montana may have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. As shown in Table 6, the shortest distance between any pair of these sources is 75 km. This indicates that there are no locations in neighboring states that would warrant further investigation with respect to Montana SO2 emission sources that might contribute to problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    13 We have limited our analysis to Montana sources of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy, because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical factors, Montana sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.

    Table 6—Neighboring State SO2 Sources Near Montana Source 2016 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Distance to
  • Montana
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to nearest
  • Montana SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Montana
  • source 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Colony East and West Plants (Crook County, Wyoming) 106 15 223 (Colstrip Station—Colstrip, Montana) 1,335 Elk Basin Gas Plant (Park County, Wyoming) 641 2 75 (CHS Laurel Refinery—Laurel, Montana) 272

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission sources within Montana and in neighboring states. Based on this analysis, we propose to determine that Montana will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation

    The EPA has reviewed available information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the state's conclusion that Montana will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. The EPA notes that Montana's analysis does not independently address whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must give the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “independent significance” by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment, considering historic variability.14 While Montana did not evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Montana's submission. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in Montana and neighboring states, and the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the EPA is proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near the Montana border do not indicate any inability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in Montana.

    14 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA must give “independent significance” to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).

    As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO2 emissions from Montana and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per our review of the EPA's emissions trends data.15 From 2000 to 2016, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by the following proportions: Idaho (70% decrease), Montana (78% decrease), North Dakota (44% decrease), South Dakota (93% decrease) and Wyoming (59% decrease). This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Montana and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these reductions suggest that there is very low likelihood that a strong upward trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to violate the NAAQS.

    15 Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

    As noted in Montana's submission, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Montana's SIP-approved PSD program.16 Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Montana's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.17 The permitting regulations contained within these programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of new facility construction or modification occurring in Montana.

    16 See EPA's final action of the PSD portions of Montana's SIP, at 81 FR 23180, April 20, 2016.

    17 Id.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Montana's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we have reviewed information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for our interstate transport prong 1 analysis. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Montana and neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in SO2 emissions from Montana and surrounding states, and state measures that prevent new facility construction or modification in Montana from causing SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from Montana. Accordingly, we propose to determine that Montana SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    C. North Dakota 1. State's Analysis

    North Dakota conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from North Dakota adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. North Dakota cited the large distance between the State's SO2 sources and the nearest SO2 nonattainment and maintenance areas in downwind states, as well as the very low SO2 values at intervening monitors. North Dakota also noted that SO2 emissions within the State have been steadily decreasing over time, specifically noting a 35% point-source emissions decrease between 2002 and 2011. With regard to the interference with maintenance requirement, North Dakota discussed the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states in the period up to and including 2011. Based on this weight of evidence analysis, North Dakota concluded that emissions within the State will not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.

    2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation

    The EPA proposes to find that North Dakota's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air quality, emission sources, and emission trends in North Dakota and neighboring states, i.e., Minnesota, Montana and South Dakota. Based on that analysis, we propose to find that North Dakota will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    To date, the only area in a state bordering North Dakota that has been designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is Billings, Montana. The EPA designated the portion of Billings surrounding the PPL Corette Power Plant based on a 2009-2011 monitored design value, concluding that this source was the key contributor to the NAAQS violations during that period. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). Following the permanent closure of the PPL Corette Plant in March 2015, which was accompanied by a significant decrease in monitored SO2 values (which indicated attainment) in the nonattainment area, the EPA redesignated the former Billings 2010 SO2 nonattainment area to attainment. See 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016). As shown in Table 7, below, the Billings, Montana area is located a large distance (343 km) from the North Dakota border, and recent monitoring data in the Billings area do not approach the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to find that emissions from North Dakota will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Billings, Montana area.

    As noted, North Dakota also referred to ambient monitor values in its transport analysis. We reviewed these, as well as the more recent 2014-2016 SO2 design value concentrations at monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values for North Dakota and neighboring states.18 In Table 7, below, we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the monitor data from North Dakota; (2) the monitor with the highest SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the North Dakota border; and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the border.

    18 Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

    Table 7—SO2 Monitor Values in North Dakota and Neighboring States State/Area Scenario Site ID Distance to
  • North Dakota
  • border
  • (km)
  • 2014-2016
  • Design value
  • (ppb)19
  • Minnesota/Minneapolis-St. Paul 2 270370020 306 12 Minnesota/Minneapolis-St. Paul 3 270530954 278 5 Montana/Richland County 3, 4 300830001 33 7 Montana/Billings 2 301110066 343 53 North Dakota/Dickinson 1 380070002 50 5 North Dakota/Burke County 1 380130004 121 23 North Dakota/Bismarck 1 380150003 99 15 North Dakota/Fargo 1 380171004 4 2 North Dakota/Dunn County 1 380250003 115 5 North Dakota/McKenzie County 1 380530002 55 6 North Dakota/McKenzie County 1 380530104 5 6 North Dakota/McKenzie County 1 380530111 2 7 North Dakota/Mercer County 1 380570004 150 22 North Dakota/Mercer County 1 380570118 159 22 North Dakota/Mercer County 1 380570124 160 16 North Dakota/Oliver County 1 380650002 139 10 South Dakota/Sioux Falls 2 460990008 265 6 South Dakota/Rapid City 3 461030020 205 4

    The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in North Dakota and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the North Dakota border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission sources near any given monitor. The data presented in Table 7, above, show that North Dakota's network of SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values indicates that monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in North Dakota are between 2% and 31% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS. There are four North Dakota monitors located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border, and these monitors indicate design values between 2% to 9% of the NAAQS. Two SO2 monitors have recently been installed in North Dakota to assist the state and the EPA in designating portions of North Dakota by 2020.20 These are source oriented monitors, and both the monitors and the source they are characterizing (the Tioga Gas Plant) are located over 80 km from the North Dakota border. There is one monitor in a neighboring state located within 50 km of the North Dakota border, and this monitor recorded an SO2 design value of 9% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented analysis.

    19 Id.

    20 See TSD: Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for North Dakota, in http://www.regulations.gov, document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0600.

    As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in North Dakota in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed North Dakota sources of 100 tpy 21 or more of SO2 up to 50 km from neighboring state borders to evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air quality in Table 8 below.

    21 We have limited our analysis to North Dakota sources of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy, because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical factors, North Dakota sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.

    Table 8—North Dakota SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States North Dakota source 2016 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Distance to
  • North Dakota
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to nearest neighboring
  • state SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Neighboring
  • state source
  • 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Drayton Sugar Mill 330 2 75 (American Crystal Sugar—East Grand Forks, Minnesota) 1,005 Hillsboro Sugar Mill 439 15 49 (American Crystal Sugar—Crookston, Minnesota) 875 University of North Dakota Heating Plant (Grand Forks) 411 2 4 (American Crystal Sugar—East Grand Forks, Minnesota) 1,005 North Dakota State University Heating Plant (Fargo) 123 2 4.5 km (American Crystal Sugar—Moorhead, Minnesota) 373 Wahpeton Sugar Mill 227 1 44 km (Hoot Lake Plant—Fergus Falls, Minnesota) 940 Wahpeton Wet Corn Mill 135 1 47 km (Hoot Lake Plant—Fergus Falls, Minnesota) 940

    As shown, there are six North Dakota sources within 50 kilometers of a cross-state source, and each neighboring state source is located in the State of Minnesota. The EPA has therefore assessed potential SO2 impacts from North Dakota on each of the four Minnesota areas with SO2 sources near the North Dakota border, specifically the Crookston, East Grand Forks, Moorhead and Fergus Falls, Minnesota areas.

    With regard to the Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota combined metropolitan area, the EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data to indicate transport from Grand Forks, North Dakota, to East Grand Forks, Minnesota. On the contrary, wind roses for three local meteorological stations indicate prevailing winds to be north-south oriented as opposed to west-east that would be conducive to interstate transport.22 On this basis, the EPA is proposing to determine that emissions from Grand Forks, North Dakota, will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in East Grand Forks, Minnesota.23

    22 This wind rose data are available in a memo to the docket for this action, which can be found on http://www.regulations.gov.

    23 The EPA is aware that the University of North Dakota has announced plans to replace its heating plant, though this change is not yet federally enforceable (See http://news.prairiepublic.org/post/und-replace-its-steam-plant-wont-be-asking-state-appropriation). The EPA also notes that any changes to the current facility and construction of a new facility must go through the state's EPA-approved New Source Review program.

    With regard to the Crookston, Minnesota area, the EPA finds the distance between the Hillsboro Sugar Mill and Crookston (49 km) makes it very unlikely that SO2 emissions from the Hillsboro Sugar Mill could interact with SO2 emissions from Crookston American Crystal Sugar in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Crookston area.

    With regard to the Moorhead, Minnesota, and Fargo, North Dakota, combined metropolitan area, the EPA reviewed available monitoring data. There is one SO2 monitor (Site ID 380171004—See Table 7) in the area, on the North Dakota side of the border, located 6.5 km northwest of the North Dakota State University Heating Plant, and 9.5 km northwest of the Moorhead American Crystal Sugar Mill. As shown, this monitor recorded a design value of 2 ppb from 2014-2016. Although this monitor is not sited to determine maximum impacts from either the Moorhead American Crystal Sugar Mill or the North Dakota State University Heating Plant, it does indicate that SO2 levels are very low (2.6% of the NAAQS) in parts of the Fargo-Moorhead combined metropolitan area. Additionally, wind roses for a local meteorological station indicates prevailing winds to be north-south oriented as opposed to west-east that would be conducive to interstate transport.24 For these reasons, in addition to the relatively low level of SO2 emissions from the North Dakota State University Heating Plant, the EPA is proposing to determine that emissions from the North Dakota State University Heating Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in Moorhead, Minnesota.

    24 This wind rose data are available in a memo to the docket for this action, which can be found on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Finally, with regard to the Fergus Falls, Minnesota area, air quality modeling submitted to the EPA by the State of Minnesota for the Hoot Lake Plant indicates that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration within the modeling domain is 55.8 ppb.25 For this reason, the Fergus Falls area does not warrant further investigation with regard to potential significant contribution to nonattainment from North Dakota. Additionally, in our analysis of Minnesota's modeling in the context of designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA noted that the Wahpeton facilities' “modeled impact at that distance to the Hoot Lake area would be minimal and it's expected their impact would be represented by the background concentration.” 26 The EPA continues to support this conclusion with respect to an interstate transport analysis for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).27

    25 See TSD: Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Minnesota, in http://www.regulations.gov, document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0057. This information was not changed for the final version of the designation, as shown at document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0618.

    26 Id.

    27 While the air quality modeling discussed here used by the EPA to support its final designation of the Fergus Falls area is also supportive of the Agency's analysis of North Dakota's 2010 SO2 transport SIP, the designation itself or the use of this modeling in the specific context of that designation is not being re-opened through this separate proposed action.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission sources both within North Dakota and in neighboring states. Based on this analysis, we propose to determine that North Dakota will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation

    In its prong 2 analysis, North Dakota reviewed potential SO2 impacts on the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota area, which is currently in “maintenance” status for the 1971 SO2 NAAQS, noting the large distance between the North Dakota border and the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (255 km), as well as NAAQS-attaining monitoring data in eastern North Dakota and in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, rather than only former nonattainment, and thus current maintenance, areas. North Dakota also performed a prong 2 analysis based on the EPA's interpretation, noting that monitors located near North Dakota in neighboring states showed very low levels of SO2, indicating they should not be considered to have maintenance issues for this NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed North Dakota's analysis and other available information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that North Dakota will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in North Dakota and neighboring states and our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions, the EPA is proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near the North Dakota border do not indicate any inability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in North Dakota.

    As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO2 emissions from North Dakota and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per our review of the EPA's emissions trends data.28 From 2000 to 2016, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by the following proportions: Minnesota (77% decrease), Montana (78% decrease), North Dakota (44% decrease) and South Dakota (93% decrease). This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in North Dakota and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these reductions suggest that there is very low likelihood that a strong upward trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to violate the NAAQS.

    28 Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

    As noted in North Dakota's submission, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by North Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program.29 Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by North Dakota's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.30 The permitting regulations contained within these programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of new facility construction or modification occurring in North Dakota.

    29 See EPA's final action of the PSD portions of North Dakota's SIP, at 82 FR 46681, October 6, 2017.

    30 Id.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, we reviewed additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in North Dakota and neighboring states, our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions, the downward trend in SO2 emissions from North Dakota and surrounding states, and state measures that prevent new facility construction or modification in North Dakota from causing SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from North Dakota. Accordingly, we propose to determine that North Dakota SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    D. South Dakota 1. State's Analysis

    South Dakota conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from South Dakota adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. South Dakota provided an inventory of each SO2 source located in a county that borders another state, including the emissions for each source. South Dakota provided information on SO2 reductions for the larger SO2 sources in this inventory, noting that the State's largest SO2 emissions source (Big Stone I) installed pollution controls between 2012 and 2015 to reduce SO2 emissions at the facility by 80%. South Dakota also discussed how the State's second highest emitter (Ben French facility) shut down in 2012, and that the combination of reductions from these two facilities would result in a 75% reduction in SO2 emissions throughout South Dakota from 2011 to 2016. South Dakota noted the large distance between the State and the nearest nonattainment areas in downwind states. South Dakota also considered the predominant northwesterly wind direction in the State, asserting that this made it very unlikely that South Dakota sources could impact SO2 nonattainment in states to its west. Finally, South Dakota noted that its permitting programs would prevent new or modified sources from impacting nonattainment and maintenance areas in downwind states going forward. Based on this weight of evidence analysis, South Dakota concluded that emissions within the State will not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.

    2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation

    The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air quality, emission sources and emission trends in South Dakota and neighboring states, i.e., Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming. Based on that analysis, we propose to find that South Dakota will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    We reviewed 2014-2016 SO2 design value concentrations at monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values for South Dakota and neighboring states.31 In Table 9, below, we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the monitor data from South Dakota; (2) the monitor with the highest SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the South Dakota border; and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the border.

    31 Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

    Table 9—SO2 Monitor Values in South Dakota and Neighboring States State/Area Scenario Site ID Distance
  • from South
  • Dakota
  • border
  • (km)
  • 2014-2016
  • Design value
  • (ppb) 32
  • Iowa/Muscatine 2 191390020 462 113 Iowa/Sioux City 3, 4 191930020 19 9 Minnesota/Minneapolis-St. Paul 2 270370020 270 12 Minnesota/Minneapolis-St. Paul 3 270530954 250 5 Montana/Richland County 3 300830001 210 7 Montana/Billings 2 301110066 343 53 Nebraska/Omaha 2 310550053 136 59 Nebraska/Omaha 3 310550019 676 27 North Dakota/Burke County 2 380130004 300 23 North Dakota/Bismarck 3 380150003 99 15 South Dakota/Jackson County 1 460710001 83 3 South Dakota/Sioux Falls 1 460990008 10 6 South Dakota/Rapid City 1 461030020 62 4 South Dakota/Sioux City 1 461270001 6 4 Wyoming/Casper 2 560252601 178 25 Wyoming/Weston County 3, 4 560450800 12 3

    The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in South Dakota and neighboring states to determine whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the South Dakota border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission sources near any given monitor. As shown, there are no violating design values in South Dakota or neighboring states apart from the Muscatine, Iowa area. In South Dakota's analysis, the State reviewed its potential impact on the Muscatine, Iowa 2010 SO2 nonattainment area. South Dakota asserted that the significant distance between its nearest border and the Muscatine area (shown in Table 9), as well as the low emissions in southeastern South Dakota indicated no SO2 impacts to the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment area. The EPA agrees with South Dakota's analysis and conclusion with regard to the Muscatine, Iowa area. The EPA notes that during the 2014-2016 period, substantial reductions in SO2 emissions occurred within the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment area.33 For this reason, the last exceedance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at the violating monitor listed in Table 9 (site ID 191390020) occurred in June 2015.34

    32 Id.

    33 See TSD: Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Iowa, in http://www.regulations.gov, document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0616.

    34 Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.

    South Dakota also analyzed potential impacts to the Billings, Montana area, which was still in nonattainment status at the time of South Dakota's submission. As noted in the section of this notice about North Dakota, the EPA redesignated the former Billings 2010 SO2 nonattainment area to attainment following the permanent closure of the PPL Corette Plant. See 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016). As noted by South Dakota, the Billings, Montana area is located a very large distance (343 km) from the nearest South Dakota border, and is upwind rather than downwind of South Dakota. Table 9 also shows that recent monitoring data in the Billings area do not approach the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For these reasons, the EPA agrees with South Dakota's conclusion that the emissions from South Dakota will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Billings, Montana area.

    The data presented in Table 9, above, show that South Dakota's network of SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values indicates that monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in South Dakota are between 4% and 8% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS. There are two South Dakota monitors located within 50 km of a neighboring state's border, and these monitors indicate design values between 5% and 8% of the NAAQS. There are two monitors in neighboring states located within 50 km of the South Dakota border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values between 4% and 12% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented analysis.

    As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in South Dakota in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air quality. The list of such sources with greater than 100 tpy 35 of SO2 within 50 km from state borders is provided in Table 10, below.

    35 We have limited our analysis to South Dakota sources of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy, because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical factors, South Dakota sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.

    Table 10—SO2 Sources Near the South Dakota Border Source 2016 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Distance to
  • South
  • Dakota
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to nearest cross-State
  • SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Cross-state
  • source 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Big Stone Power Plant (Grant County, South Dakota) 827 4 113 (Wahpeton Sugar Mill—Richland County, North Dakota) 227 Colony East and West Plant (Crook County, Wyoming) 106 8 111 (GCC Dacotah—Rapid City, South Dakota) 304

    With regard to potential cross-state impacts from the Big Stone Power Plant, air quality modeling submitted to the EPA by South Dakota indicates that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration within the modeling domain surrounding the power plant is 57.88 ppb.36 This predicted maximum concentration, which includes an estimate of the background concentration, indicates that this source alone could not cause nonattainment in South Dakota or any other state. Together with the distance between Big Stone and the nearest cross-state source (113 km), this indicates that the Big Stone Power Plant will not significantly contribute to nonattainment in any other state. The EPA continues to support this conclusion with respect to an interstate transport analysis for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).37

    36 See TSD: Final Area Designations for the 2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for South Dakota, in http://www.regulations.gov, document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464-0359.

    37 While the air quality modeling discussed here used by the EPA to support its final designation of the Grant County, South Dakota area is also supportive of the Agency's analysis of South Dakota's 2010 SO2 transport SIP, the designation itself or the use of this modeling in the specific context of that designation is not being re-opened through this separate proposed action.

    The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km of the South Dakota border. This is because elevated levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in South Dakota may have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. As shown in Table 10, the only source within this distance of the South Dakota border is the Colony East and West Plant. The shortest distance between this source and the nearest source in South Dakota, the GCC Dacotah facility, is 111 km. This makes it very unlikely that SO2 emissions from the GCC Dacotah facility could interact with SO2 emissions from the Colony East and West Plants in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Crook County, Wyoming area.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission sources within South Dakota and in neighboring states. Based on this analysis, we propose to determine that South Dakota will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation

    The EPA has reviewed available information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the state's conclusion that South Dakota will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. The EPA notes that South Dakota's analysis does not independently address whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. As noted, the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be given “independent significance” by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment, considering historic variability.38 While South Dakota did not evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of South Dakota's submission. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in South Dakota and neighboring states, and the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the EPA is proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near the South Dakota border do not indicate any inability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS that could be attributed in part to sources in South Dakota.

    38 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (DC Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA must give “independent significance” to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).

    As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO2 emissions from South Dakota and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per our review of the EPA's emissions trends data.39 From 2000 to 2016, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by the following proportions: Iowa (81% decrease), Minnesota (77% decrease), Montana (78% decrease), Nebraska (52% decrease), North Dakota (44% decrease), South Dakota (93% decrease) and Wyoming (59% decrease). This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in South Dakota and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these reductions suggest that there is very low likelihood that a strong upward trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to violate the NAAQS.

    39 Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

    As noted in South Dakota's submission, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by South Dakota's SIP-approved PSD program.40 Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by South Dakota's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.41 The permitting regulations contained within these programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of new facility construction or modification occurring in South Dakota.

    40 See EPA's final action of the PSD portions of South Dakota's SIP, at 82 FR 38832, August 16, 2017.

    41 Id.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of South Dakota's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we have reviewed additional information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in South Dakota and neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in SO2 emissions from South Dakota and surrounding states, and state measures that prevent new facility construction or modification in South Dakota from causing SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from South Dakota. Accordingly, we propose to determine that South Dakota SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    E. Wyoming 1. State's Analysis

    Wyoming conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from Wyoming adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Wyoming primarily reviewed the potential impact of emissions from Wyoming on the Billings, Montana 2010 SO2 maintenance area, which was designated as nonattainment at the time of Wyoming's submittal, because Montana was the only state bordering Wyoming that contained a nonattainment or maintenance area for this NAAQS. Wyoming reviewed wind rose data from northeast Wyoming, the location in Wyoming with the nearest significant SO2 sources to the Billings area. Based on a review of this information, Wyoming concluded that winds in northeast Wyoming were predominantly from the north and west, and therefore made transport to Billings very unlikely. Wyoming also asserted that SO2 sources within Wyoming were all located much further than 50 km from the Billings area. Finally, Wyoming noted that no neighboring state apart from Montana contained a 2010 SO2 nonattainment area. Based on this weight of evidence analysis, Wyoming concluded that emissions within the State will not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states.

    2. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation

    The EPA proposes to find that Wyoming's SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as discussed below. We have analyzed the air quality, emission sources and emission trends in Wyoming and neighboring states, i.e., Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah.42 Based on that analysis, we propose to find that Wyoming will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    42 The EPA also analyzed potential Wyoming SO2 transport to the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. The Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes have been approved by the EPA for treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) status for CAA Section 126 (78 FR 76829, December 19, 2013). The Tribes' TAS application for Section 126 demonstrates an interest in how their air quality is impacted by Wyoming sources outside of the Reservation. We determined that the only source above 100 tpy of SO2 within 50 km of the Wind River Reservation, the Lost Cabin Gas Plant, is located over 40 km downwind (see wind rose data in the docket for this action) from the Reservation. The area around this source contains a source-oriented monitor (Site ID 560130003) indicating a fourth highest 1-hour daily maximum below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in its first year of operation. Therefore, the available information indicates that emissions from Wyoming will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at the Wind River Reservation.

    Wyoming focused its analysis on potential impacts to the Billings, Montana area, which was still in nonattainment status at the time of Wyoming's submission. As noted, the EPA redesignated the former Billings 2010 SO2 nonattainment area to attainment following the permanent closure of the PPL Corette Plant. See 81 FR 28718 (May 10, 2016). As asserted by Wyoming and shown in Table 11, the Billings, Montana area is located a large distance (87 km) from the Wyoming border. Further, the wind roses provided by Wyoming indicate that meteorology does not favor transport from Wyoming sources to the Billings area. Table 11 also shows that recent monitoring data in the Billings area do not approach the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For these reasons, the EPA agrees with Wyoming's conclusion that emissions from Wyoming will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Billings, Montana area.

    We reviewed 2014-2016 SO2 design value concentrations at monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values for Wyoming and neighboring states.43 In Table 11, below, we have included monitoring data from four scenarios: (1) All of the monitor data from Wyoming; (2) the monitor with the highest SO2 level in each neighboring state; (3) the monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Wyoming border; and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the Wyoming border.

    43 Data retrieved from EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

    Table 11—SO2 Monitor Values in Wyoming and Neighboring States State/Area Scenario Site ID Distance to
  • Wyoming
  • border
  • (km)
  • 2014-2016 Design value
  • (ppb) 44
  • Colorado/Denver 3 080013001 127 18 Colorado/Colorado Springs 2 080410015 240 52 Idaho/Pocatello 2 160050004 120 39 Idaho/Caribou County 3, 4 160290031 45 26 Montana/Billings 2, 3 301110066 87 53 Nebraska/Omaha 3 310550019 676 27 Nebraska/Omaha 2 310550053 679 59 South Dakota/Sioux Falls 2 460990008 593 6 South Dakota/Rapid City 3 461030020 62 4 Wyoming/Gillette 1 560050857 80 21 Wyoming/Cheyenne 1 560210100 20 9 Wyoming/Casper 1 560252601 178 25 Wyoming/Rock Springs 1 560370300 83 21 Wyoming/Weston County 1 560450800 12 3

    The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data in Wyoming and neighboring states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly near the Wyoming border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission sources near any given monitor. The data presented in Table 11, above, show that Wyoming's network of SO2 monitors with data sufficient to produce valid 1-hour SO2 design values indicates that monitored 1-hour SO2 levels in Wyoming are between 4% and 33% of the 75 ppb level of the NAAQS. There are two Wyoming monitors located within 50 km of the state's border, and these monitors indicate design values between 4% and 12% of the NAAQS. Seven SO2 monitors have recently been installed in Wyoming to assist the State and the EPA in designating portions of Wyoming by 2020.45 These are source oriented monitors, and none of these monitors or the sources they are characterizing are located within 50 km of the Wyoming border. There is one monitor in a neighboring state located within 50 km of the Wyoming border, and this monitor recorded an SO2 design value of 35% of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular location that would warrant further investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented analysis.

    44 Id.

    45 See TSD: Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Wyoming, in http://www.regulations.gov, document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0608.

    As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Wyoming in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the “urban scale” definition contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, Section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources up to 50 km from state borders to evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air quality. The list of sources of greater than 100 tpy 46 of SO2 within 50 km from state borders is provided in Table 12 below.

    46 We have limited our analysis to Wyoming sources of SO2 emitting at least 100 tpy, because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual physical factors, Wyoming sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.

    Table 12—Wyoming SO2 Sources Near Neighboring States Wyoming source 2016 annual
  • SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Distance to
  • Wyoming
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to nearest
  • neighboring state
  • SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Neighboring
  • state source
  • 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Carter Creek Gas Plant 130 11 76 (Devils Slide Plant, Holcim—Morgan County, Utah) 187 Frontier Petroleum Refinery 311 14 35 (Rawhide Energy Station—Larimer County, Colorado) 879 Naughton Power Plant 4,069.7 37 110 (Devils Slide Plant, Holcim—Morgan County, Utah) 187 Laramie Cement Plant 165 30 67 (Rawhide Energy Station, Larimer County, Colorado) 879 Colony East and West Plants 106 8 111 km (GCC Dacotah—Rapid City, South Dakota) 304 Elk Basin Gas Plant 641 2 75 km (CHS Laurel Refinery—Laurel, Montana) 272

    With regard to the Frontier Petroleum Refinery in Cheyenne, the EPA has assessed potential SO2 impacts from this source on the area near the Rawhide Energy Station, in Larimer County, Colorado.

    The EPA reviewed available monitoring data in Cheyenne, Wyoming. One monitor is located 6 km northeast of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery (Site ID 560210100—See Table 11), and recorded a 2014-2016 SO2 design value of 9 ppb. The maximum 1-hour SO2 value measured at this monitor from January 1, 2011 (when it began operation) to December 31, 2017, was 31 ppb. A second monitor not listed in Table 11, located 3 km east of the Frontier Petroleum Refinery, recorded 1 year of data in Cheyenne to examine potential population exposure near the Frontier Petroleum Refinery.47 Between March 31, 2016 and April 3, 2017, this monitor recorded a maximum SO2 concentration of 44 ppb, with a fourth highest 1-hour daily maximum concentration of 16.7 ppb. Although these monitoring data do not provide information as to the air quality near the Rawhide Generating Station, they do indicate that SO2 levels are low near the Frontier Petroleum Refinery, and decrease even more at 6 km from the source. We anticipate emissions will continue to decrease as distance increases, resulting in very little SO2 impact from the Frontier Petroleum Refinery at the Colorado border (14 km), and even less near the Rawhide Generating Station (35 km). This, in combination with the relatively low level of emissions from the refinery (See Table 12), leads the EPA to conclude that SO2 transport at significant levels between Cheyenne, Wyoming and Larimer County, Colorado, is very unlikely.

    47 See Wyoming's 2016 Annual Monitoring Network Plan at pages 50-51: http://deq.wyoming.gov/aqd/monitoring/resources/annual-network-plans/.

    With regard to the Elk Basin Gas Plant, the EPA does not have information at this time suggesting that the State of Montana is impacted by emissions from Elk Basin Gas Plant or other emissions activity originating in Wyoming in violation of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, we do not have evidence that demonstrates that emissions from this source will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    With regard to potential cross-state impacts from the Naughton Power Plant, air quality modeling submitted to the EPA by Wyoming indicates that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour concentration within the modeling domain surrounding the power plant is 56.3 ppb.48 This predicted maximum concentration, which includes an estimate of the background concentration, indicates that this source alone could not cause nonattainment in Wyoming or any other state. Together with the distance between Naughton and the nearest cross-state source (110 km), this indicates that the Naughton Power Plant will not significantly contribute to nonattainment in any other state. The EPA continues to support this conclusion with respect to an interstate transport analysis for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).49

    48 See TSD: Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Wyoming, in http://www.regulations.gov, document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0608, and TSD: Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Wyoming, at EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0033.

    49 While the air quality modeling discussed here used by the EPA to support its final designation of the Lincoln County, Wyoming area is also supportive of the Agency's analysis of Wyoming's 2010 SO2 transport SIP, the designation itself or the use of this modeling in the specific context of that designation is not being re-opened through this separate proposed action.

    For the other sources listed in Table 12, the low levels of emissions and large distances between Wyoming sources within 50 km of a state border and the nearest SO2 source in a neighboring state provide further evidence to support a conclusion that emissions from Wyoming will not contribute to problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.

    Table 13—Neighboring State SO2 Sources Near Wyoming * Source 2016 SO2
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Distance to
  • Wyoming
  • border
  • (km)
  • Distance to
  • nearest Wyoming
  • SO2 source
  • (km)
  • Wyoming
  • source 2016
  • emissions
  • (tons)
  • Clean Harbors Env. Services (Kimball County, Nebraska) 218 33 95 (Frontier Petroleum Refinery) 311 P4 Production Chemical Plant (Soda Springs, Idaho) 478 45 132 (Naughton Generating Station) 4,069 Nu-West Industries Fertilizer Plant (Conda, Idaho) 364 40 134 (Naughton Generating Station) 4,069 * We have not included sources that are duplicative of those in Table 12.

    The EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km of the Wyoming border (see Table 13). This is because elevated levels of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Wyoming may have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. As shown in Table 13, the shortest distance between any pair of these sources is within 95 km. This indicates that there are no additional locations in neighboring states that would warrant further investigation with respect to Wyoming SO2 emission sources that might contribute to problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 1, we reviewed ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2 emission sources both within Wyoming and in neighboring states. Based on this analysis, we propose to determine that Wyoming will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    3. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation

    The EPA has reviewed the analysis presented by Wyoming and additional information on SO2 air quality and emission trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Wyoming will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. The EPA notes that Wyoming's analysis does not independently address whether the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. As noted, the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must be given “independent significance” by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment, considering historic variability.50 While Wyoming did not evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Wyoming's submission. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, because of the low monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in Wyoming and neighboring states and the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the EPA is proposing to find that SO2 levels in neighboring states near the Wyoming border do not indicate an inability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS.

    50 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (DC Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA must give “independent significance” to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).

    As shown in Table 1, the statewide SO2 emissions from Wyoming and neighboring states have decreased substantially over time, per our review of the EPA's emissions trends data.51 From 2000 to 2016, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by the following proportions: Colorado (82% decrease), Idaho (70% decrease), Montana (78% decrease), Nebraska (52% decrease), South Dakota (93% decrease), Utah (73% decrease) and Wyoming (59% decrease). This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in Wyoming and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the geographic scope of these reductions and their large sizes strongly suggest that they are not transient effects from reversible causes, and thus these reductions suggest that there is very low likelihood that a strong upward trend in emissions will occur that might cause areas presently in attainment to violate the NAAQS.

    51 Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

    As noted in Wyoming's submission, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Wyoming's SIP-approved PSD program.52 Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by Wyoming's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.53 The permitting regulations contained within these programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of new facility construction or modification occurring in Wyoming.

    52 See EPA's final action of the PSD portions of Wyoming's SIP, at 82 FR 18992, April 25, 2017.

    53 Id.

    In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Wyoming's submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2. In doing so, we reviewed information about emission trends, as well as the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1. We find that the combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Wyoming and neighboring states, the large distances between cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in SO2 emissions from Wyoming and surrounding states, and state measures that prevent new facility construction or modification in Wyoming from causing SO2 exceedances in downwind states, indicates no interference with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS from Wyoming. Accordingly, we propose to determine that Wyoming SO2 emission sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the following submittals as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS: Colorado's July 17, 2013 and February 16, 2018 submittals; Montana's July 15, 2013 submittal; North Dakota's March 7, 2013 submittal; South Dakota's December 20, 2013; and Wyoming's March 6, 2015 submittal. The EPA is proposing this approval based on our review of the information and analysis provided by each state, as well as additional relevant information, which indicates that in-state air emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

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

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

    • are 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.);

    • do 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);

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

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

    • are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

    In addition, these SIPs are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Douglas Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11846 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0184; FRL-9978-88—Region 4] Florida; Approval of Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on May 31, 2017, and supplemented on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0184] at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Dressler, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Dressler can be reached via telephone at 404-562-9208 and via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

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

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

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

    II. Review of Florida's CISWI State Plan Submittal

    Florida submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state 1 on February 6, 2014. On May 31, 2017, Florida submitted a revised plan, which was supplemented on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018. EPA has reviewed the revised plan for existing CISWI units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. State plans must include the following nine essential elements: Identification of legal authority; identification of mechanism for implementation; inventory of affected facilities; emissions inventory; emission limits; compliance schedules; testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; public hearing records; and, annual state progress reports on plan enforcement.

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

    A. Identification of Legal Authority

    Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement the EG's emission standards and compliance schedule. In its submittal, Florida cites the following State law provisions for its authority to implement and enforce the plan: Florida Statutes (F.S.) Sec. 403.031 (definitions); F.S. Sec. 403.061 (promulgate air quality plans, adopt rules, take enforcement action, set standards, monitor air quality, require reporting, permitting, and implement the CAA); F.S. Sec. 403.087 and 403.0872 (permitting); F.S. Sec. 403.121 (judicial and administrative remedies), 403.131 injunctive relief), 403.141 (civil liability), and 403.161 (civil and criminal penalties); F.S. Sec. 403.201 (variances); F.S. Sec. 403.716 (operator training); and, F.S. Sec. 403.8055 (incorporation by reference of Federal standards). Florida also notes that it has adopted rules into the Florida Administrative Code to implement and enforce its air quality program. EPA has reviewed the cited authorities and has preliminarily concluded that the State has adequately demonstrated legal authority to implement and enforce the CISWI state plan in Florida.

    B. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanisms for Implementing the Plan

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as “a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.” See also 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(8). Florida has adopted enforceable emission standards for affected CISWI units at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f). EPA has preliminarily concluded that the rule meets the emission standard requirement under 40 CFR 60.24(a).

    C. Inventory of Affected Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Florida has identified affected units at five facilities: Titan Pennsuco, Argos Cement Newbery Kiln 1, Argos Cement Newberry Kiln 2, Suwannee American Cement, and American Cement Company LLC. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Florida has met the affected unit inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1).

    D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected CISWI Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions from CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Florida submitted an emissions inventory for CISWI units as part of its state plan, which was supplemented on February 2, 2018. This emissions inventory contains CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Florida has met the emission inventory requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2).

    E. Emission Limitations, Operator Training and Qualification, Waste Management Plan, and Operating Limits for CISWI Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), 60.24(c), and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. Florida has incorporated the emission standards from the EG by reference into its regulations at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f), F.A.C., with one exception: For units in the waste-burning kiln subcategory, Florida's state plan provides an equivalent production-based mercury emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker, rather than the concentration-based standard of 0.011 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter contained in Table 8 to subpart DDDD of part 60. See Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(5), F.A.C.

    Under 40 CFR 60.2515(b), EPA has the authority to approve plan requirements that deviate from the content of the EG, so long as the state demonstrates that the requirements are at least as protective. In the February 7, 2013 rule adopting the EG for existing CISWI units, EPA discussed its methodology for developing emission limits for the subcategories of sources subject to the rule. See 78 FR 9112 (February 7, 2013). Though we noted that the Agency was retaining an “emissions concentration basis for the standards,” we also expressed the standard for waste-burning kiln emission limits on a production basis. See id. at 9122-23. For those kilns, we noted that an equivalent production-based standard for mercury would be 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker. See id. at 9122.

    In other words, EPA has previously explained that the equivalent production-based emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker for waste-burning kilns is at least as protective as the standard contained in the EG. Because Florida's state plan imposes either this equivalent standard or the applicable EG on waste-burning kilns—and imposes the applicable EG on all other affected CISWI units—we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's CISWI plan satisfies the emissions limitations requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c).

    40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operator training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Florida's state plan incorporates these requirements from the EG at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(3)-(5). Thus, we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4).

    F. Compliance Schedules

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. EPA has the authority to approve compliance schedule requirements that deviate from those imposed under the EG, so long as those are at least as protective as the EG. See 40 CFR 60.2515(b).

    In the state plan at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(7), F.A.C., Florida generally requires that affected sources comply with the EG initial compliance requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 through 40 CFR 60.2706. However, for waste-burning kilns complying with the production-based mercury emission limit, Florida's state plan requires compliance with the requirements applicable to Portland Cement Manufacturing Kilns, which are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. See Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(7).

    As noted above, EPA has authority to approve requirements that are at least as stringent as the EG. Here, we have preliminarily concluded that the state plan's compliance schedule requirements for waste-burning kilns contain all relevant elements of the EG, and also impose additional recordkeeping requirements that are necessary for the effective implementation and enforcement of the equivalent limit. For these reasons, we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3).

    G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an approvable state plan must require that sources conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Florida's state plan incorporates by reference the model rule provisions of the EG: For performance testing at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(6), F.A.C.; for monitoring at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(9), F.A.C.; and, for recordkeeping and reporting at Rule 62-204.800(9)(f)(10), F.A.C. In addition to these requirements, Florida imposes further monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for waste-burning kilns operating under a production-based mercury emission limit. Because Florida's state plan imposes requirements that are at least as stringent as those imposed under Federal law for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, we have preliminarily concluded that Florida's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5).

    H. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan Revision

    40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing; make all relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing; and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an interstate region, each state within the region. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(6) requires each state plan include certification that the hearing was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission. However, under 40 CFR 60.23(g), the Administrator may also approve alternative public participation procedures, so long as the procedures “in fact provide for adequate notice to and participation of the public.”

    In its state plan submittal, as supplemented by its December 19, 2017 letter, Florida has requested approval of alternative public participation requirements for this and future state plan submittals. If approved, Florida intends to apply these modified public participation procedures to future state plans and state plan revisions. As Florida notes, the State published notice of the proposed revisions to the state plan in the Florida Administrative Register. In the notice, the State provided the public with an opportunity to submit comments and to request a public hearing, which would be held on February 21, 2017. Because Florida did not receive any comments or requests for hearing, however, the hearing was not held.

    In these circumstances, we believe that Florida's procedures, although different from the procedures required under 40 CFR 60.23(c) and (d), provide for adequate notice to and participation of the public. We also note that the State's alternative procedures comply with the notice requirements for State Implementation Plan submittals under CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA is proposing in this action to approve Florida's alternative public participation procedures for this and future CAA section 111(d)/129 state plan submissions.

    I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Florida provides in its plan that it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Florida's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7).

    III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's state plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 31, 2017, and supplemented on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018. In addition, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart K to reflect this action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA. It also does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not proposing to approve the submitted plan to apply in Indian country located in the state, and because the submitted plan will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7411.

    Dated: May 15, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11929 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9977-80—Region 8] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews (FYR), have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010 by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129

    Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR-SR), Denver, CO 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116; Phone: (801-944-7641); Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri-Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6762, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the remaining portions of Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;

    (4) The State of Utah, through the UDEQ, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, Deseret News. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL.

    Site Background and History

    The 106-acre Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (UTD988075719) is located 15 miles southeast of Salt Lake City at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. Constructed in the 1870s, the Davenport and the Flagstaff smelters treated ores from mines near Alta, Utah. Lead smelting was the dominant industrial activity at the Site. Lead and arsenic were the primary products associated with ore processing. At times copper, gold, silver, and other metals were also produced at the Site. Ore processing and disposal of waste products have resulted in contamination at the Site.

    The EPA proposed the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 2000 and finalized listing of the Site on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23077). The EPA proposed the Site to the NPL based on studies conducted between 1992 and 2003 due to soil and sediments contaminated with lead and arsenic. Lead levels greater than 200,000 mg/kg were detected in an investigation conducted in 2000.

    The Site is divided into three operable units. Operable Unit 1 (OU1) is the southern 28 acres of the Site. It is the location of the former Davenport Smelter and current location of residential properties. Operable Unit 2 (OU2) is the middle and western part of the Site, and is comprised of 29 acres of commercial and undeveloped land. Operable Unit 3 (OU3) is the northern 49 acres of the Site. The location of the former Flagstaff Smelter, which was once agricultural land, is now mostly residential. Wastes were present on the Site for many years and, in some locations, groundwater was in direct contact with visible slag without appreciable impact on groundwater. Concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater are generally below federal maximum contamination limits (MCLs).

    Because portions of OU1 was deleted from the NPL on August 20, 2004 under a Partial Deletion (69 FR 51583), the remaining portions of OU1, OU2 and OU3 are the focus of this deletion.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The former smelters were the suspected source of waste within OU1, OU2 and OU3. Analysis of sample data confirmed that soil contamination was caused by deliberate use of waste as fill and environmental factors transporting smelter waste. The 1999 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment identified arsenic and lead as contaminants of concern. This Risk Assessment established the action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic for surface soils. EPA completed a Focused Feasibility Study (FS) in December 2001.

    Selected Remedy

    Prior to the signing of the Record on Decision (ROD) in 2009, a removal action in OU1 was conducted. While the majority of OU2 land was undeveloped, there were three residences and a restaurant within OU2. EPA issued a ROD for OU2 dated September 16, 2009, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) dated July, 2012 and an ESD for OU1/OU3, dated November 11, 2015. These decision documents defined the remedy as follows:

    • Soils on properties with principal threat wastes (wastes that fail TCLP and/or is a characteristic hazardous waste) required stabilization and disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill.

    • Excavation of a minimum of 18 inches of soil of all properties was recommended for remediation of all residential properties that had soil lead levels which exceeded the established action levels of 600 mg/kg for lead and 126 mg/kg for arsenic.

    • Hand excavation would be conducted around affected areas of native vegetation.

    • Institutional Controls (ICs) to make sure the remedy is protective.

    • Off-Site disposal of contaminated soils and backfill with clean soil.

    • Due to physical restrictions presented by topography and existing utility structures, and to preserve mature vegetation to enhance the overall remedy performance, contamination at concentrations greater than action levels could be left in place.

    • If removal of contaminated soils was not feasible due to steep slopes and existing structures, these soils remained after construction activities were completed if they did not pose a threat to human health.

    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs), as amended, were to prevent unacceptable exposure risks to current and future human populations presented by contact, ingestion, or inhalation of smelter materials, associated contaminated materials, or COCs derived from the smelter wastes.

    Response Actions

    In 2004, an OU1 removal action addressed 26 residential properties. Remediation work for OU2 and OU3 was conducted in two removal actions. The contractor mobilized in August 2011. The pre-final inspection of the removal action was on November 16, 2011 and the final inspection on May 29, 2012. The OU2 Construction Completion Report was signed on September 24, 2012. Little Cottonwood Canyon Partners conducted a non-time critical removal action at OU3 under an agreement with the EPA and under oversight of the UDEQ. This action allowed for redevelopment of the agricultural land for residential use. Remediation work for OU3 began on April 26, 2006; the final inspection was conducted on September 6, 2006. The Final Close Out Report for OU3 is dated September 7, 2006. Site-wide, approximately a total of 137,000 tons were excavated and placed beneath an engineered soil and clay cap on-site. UDEQ was the lead agency for the remediation as defined in a cooperative agreement between EPA and UDEQ.

    Operation and Maintenance

    The Operations and Maintenance Plan consists of the following activities: inspection/observation during redevelopment construction; review of development construction plans and specification for conformance with cover requirements; storm water management and irrigation restrictions; and temporary stockpile and covering of soil and slag. Maintaining appropriate soil cover and drainage is a required operation and maintenance IC. The State is responsible for enforcing the cap and soil ICs.

    The 2009 OU2 ROD required the establishment of ICs to prevent exposure to contaminated materials and to require State review of future changes to land use. ICs that support limited commercial and residential re-use were adopted by the City of Sandy. In addition, ICs for groundwater and surface water were established by the State to prohibit use as drinking water.

    Five-Year Review

    Statutory Five-Year Reviews (FYR) of the Site are required because hazardous substances remain on-Site above levels which allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Two FYRs were conducted, in 2012 and 2017. Both FYRs found the remedy at the Site to be protective. The 2017 FYR identified an issue of needing to clarify roles of local authorities with respect to ICs. The issue was resolved by ensuring Salt Lake County would monitor and enforce ICs. The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed by September 2022.

    Community Involvement

    Major community involvement activities included establishing a local presence by meeting with local property owners and concerned citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews, fact sheets, letters, flyers, door-to-door visits, public meetings, neighborhood meetings, public comment periods and website updates. The most recent interviews were conducted in the spring 2017 for the FYR. The EPA's Community Involvement criteria associated with 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4) require EPA to conduct interviews and/or gather community input.

    Today, approximately seventy percent of the Site has been fully developed for residential and commercial land-use. The successful revitalization of this Site is sustainable, provides valuable reuse, and elevates the quality of life with revitalization for years to come.

    Determination that the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion

    The implemented Site-wide remedy achieves the RAOs specified in the September 2009 OU2 ROD and the April 25, 2005 OU1/OU3 ESD for all pathways of exposure. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site.

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Utah, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented and no further response action is appropriate.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: May 21, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11758 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 48 CFR Parts 3019 and 3052 [Docket No. DHS-2018-0024] RIN 1601-AA83 Rescinding Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting (HSAR Case 2017-001) AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DHS is proposing to deregulate HSAR clause 3052.219-70 as the requirements of this clause duplicate the requirements in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. As such, HSAR clause 3052.219-70 is no longer needed to provide guidance to contractors and DHS proposes to remove the clause from the HSAR.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to one of the addresses shown below on or before July 5, 2018, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by HSAR Case 2017-001, Rescinding HSAR clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Reporting, using any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “HSAR Case 2017-001” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “HSAR Case 2017-001.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “HSAR Case 2017-001” on your attached document.

    Fax: (202) 447-0520.

    Mail: Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation, ATTN: Ms. Candace Lightfoot, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0080, Washington, DC 20528.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Candace Lightfoot, Procurement Analyst, DHS, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy and Legislation at (202) 447-0882 or email [email protected] When using email, include HSAR Case 2017-001 in the “Subject” line.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On December 4, 2003, DHS published an interim final rule to establish the Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR). 68 FR 67867. On May 2, 2006, DHS published a final rule, which adopted the interim rule with some changes in response to public comment (HSAR final rule). 71 FR 25759. The HSAR final rule finalized, among other things, HSAR clause 3052.219-70, Small Business Subcontracting Reporting Plan (48 CFR 3052.219-70). HSAR clause 3052.219-70 requires contractors to: (a) Enter the information for the Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts (formally the Standard Form 294 (SF-294)) and the Summary Subcontract Report (formally the Standard Form 295 (SF-295)) into the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) at www.esrs.gov; and (b) include HSAR clause 3052.219.70 in all subcontracts that include the clause at (FAR) 48 CFR 52.219-9. The eSRS is a web-based system, which replaces the Standard Forms 294 and 295 as the mechanism for submitting reports required by the small business subcontracting program.

    On June 16, 2010, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council issued a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require contractors' small business subcontract reports be submitted using the eSRS, rather than Standard Forms 294 and 295. 75 FR 34260; FAR Case 2005-040. This change to the FAR was issued under Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-42 of June 16, 2010. 75 FR 34291. As a result of the FAR revision HSAR clause 3052.219-70 is no longer needed to provide guidance to contractors on the eSRS requirements. Therefore, DHS is proposing to remove HSAR clause 3052.219-70 and the cross-reference to it found in paragraph (a) of 48 CFR 3019.708-70.

    In addition, DHS is proposing to amend the authority citation for part 3019 to conform the authority to the Positive Law Codification of Title 41, United States code, “Public Contracts”. The new codification of Title 41 was enacted on January 4, 2011.1

    1See Public Law 111-350, (Jan. 4, 2011).

    II. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. OMB considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017). This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    There are no quantified costs or cost savings to this rule as it simply rescinds requirements that have already been shifted to the FAR. DHS believes there are non-monetized efficiency and streamlining benefits to this rule as it removes outdated provisions of the HSAR.

    III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action rescinds HSAR clause 3052.219-70 and, as such, DHS does not expect the proposed change to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    The total hours and costs associated with existing HSAR clause 3052.219-70, as set forth in HSAR OMB Control Number, 1600-0003, Post-award Contract Information, are as follows:

    Estimated Respondents: 11,885.

    Average Responses Annually: 3.

    Total Annual Responses: 35,655.

    Estimated Hours: 12.

    Total Hours: 427,860.

    Hourly Rate: $67.86.

    Total Costs: $29,034,579.60.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 3019 and 3052

    Government procurement.

    Therefore, DHS proposes to revise 48 CFR parts 3019 and 3052 as follows:

    PART 3019—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS 1. Revise the authority citation for 48 CFR part 3019 to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301-302, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 41 U.S.C. 1707, and 48 CFR part 1 and subpart 1.3.

    2. Amend section 3019.708-70 by removing paragraph (a) and redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). PART 3052—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 3052 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301-302, 41 U.S.C. 1702, 41 U.S.C. 1707, and 48 CFR part 1 and subpart 1.3

    4. Remove clause 3052.219-70. Soraya Correa, Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11617 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    83 107 Monday, June 4, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Request for Applications for Veteran Farmer Streamlined Eligibility Pilot Program AGENCY:

    Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is announcing the opportunity for interested veterans to apply for a new pilot program, Veteran Farmer Streamlined Eligibility Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”), which will assist veterans in meeting the management experience requirements at a faster pace for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the Farm Ownership Loan (FO) Program. As set forth in a cooperative agreement between FSA and Texas A&M University, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program employees will expand their existing veterans training program, “Battleground to Breaking Ground,” to incorporate the requirements of the Pilot Program through a cooperative agreement with FSA. FSA will be involved in helping develop and review curriculum, review applications, participate in orientation, and monitor participants' progress throughout the Pilot Program. The purpose of the Pilot Program is to provide an educational opportunity for veterans so that they can obtain agricultural production, financial, and managerial training at an accelerated pace that will then result in the veteran to be considered conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program.

    DATES:

    The application period will open on June 15, 2018, and close on July 20, 2018 no later than 11 p.m. CST.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Kimbrough, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program, 979-847-6185, [email protected] or Russ Clanton, FSA, 202-690-0214, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    FSA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its farm loan programs are authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended (CONACT, Pub. L. 92-419). Farmers or ranchers may be able to get a loan or loan guarantee through FSA's Farm Loan Programs (FLP) if they are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to start, purchase, sustain, or expand a farm. Unlike loans from a commercial lender, FSA loans are temporary in nature with the goal of graduating loans to commercial credit. Direct loans through the FO Program are used to purchase or enlarge a farm or ranch, construct a new or improve existing farm or ranch buildings, and for soil and water conservation and protection purposes. Downpayment loans and Microloans are types of loans available through the FO Program. Microloans are limited to $50,000.00. See definition of Microloan in 7 CFR 761.2.

    Currently, in order to be eligible for either Microloans or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program, the applicant must have participated in the business operations of a farm for at least 3 years out of the 10 years prior to the date the application is submitted. In addition, section 302(b)(1) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1922) provides the Secretary with the flexibility to determine “other acceptable experience for a period of time.” For example, FSA currently allows 1 of the 3 years to be substituted with leadership or management experience while serving in any branch of the military (see 7 CFR 764.152(d)(3)). For the Pilot Program, FSA is building on the CONACT's flexibility in order to allow veterans to qualify for FSA's managerial experience in a quicker timeframe.

    Section 333D of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1983d) provides FSA with the authority to conduct a pilot program in order to evaluate its current processes in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the farm loan programs. The Congressional Directives in the explanatory statement for the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 (Division A, Pub. L. 115-31) directs FSA to support a certified training program for veteran farmers to be prequalified for direct FOs (see page H3331 (https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/05/03/CREC-2017-05-03-bk2.pdf).

    The purpose of this Pilot Program is to provide an educational opportunity to veteran farmers so that they can obtain production, financial, and managerial training and other required experiences as specified in 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152 to potentially qualify for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program in 12-18 months rather than the current timeline of 2 years. FSA's goal through the use of the Pilot Program is that there will be a better educated applicant, better customer service for the applicant and the seller of the farm, more efficient loan approval process for the loan officer and a more successful farm borrower. The agency will review the outcome of the Pilot Program to determine if this is a cost effective approach that leads to greater borrower success. A successful Pilot Program may lead to a broader use of this approach with other universities or with other applicants.

    FSA strongly encourages American Veterans who are seeking a career in agriculture to apply to for the Pilot Program. The most challenging barriers for new or beginning farmer or ranchers, including veterans who desire to enter into agriculture businesses, are access to both land and capital. Access to capital is not limited to the availability of credit, but also to the ability of an applicant to meet the eligibility requirements for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program. This includes having the requisite managerial experience and ability to develop and present a viable business plan. By offering specific agricultural production and financial training, as well as hands on mentoring in the veteran's chosen area of agriculture, a conditional loan eligibility will be earned upon on the completion of the Pilot Program.

    FSA has found that veterans are very interested in starting a farming or ranching business, which led to developing the Pilot Program. Specifically, in response to the request for comments about farm loan pilot projects after the 2014 Farm Bill (79 FR 60805-60807, October 8, 2014), two of the comments that FSA received focused specifically on helping veterans. One of those comments specifically recommended a pilot training program.

    Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program is already operating under the heading “Battleground to Breaking Ground.” FSA's Pilot Program expands on the existing program curriculum to prepare veterans for financing from FSA. The Pilot Program will be a combination of written course work offered online, an individual education plan that includes hands on agricultural production workshops, and mentorships. Upon conclusion of the course, a veteran will meet the business operation requirement as specified in 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152 for eligibility up to 1 year sooner and will be considered conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through FO Program.

    Eligibility Information

    The applicant must meet the following eligibility requirements and will self-certify to the following when applying online for Texas A&M's Battleground to Breaking Ground program and provide additional documentation where specified below:

    1. The applicant is a veteran. After being selected for the Pilot Program, applicants will need certain documentation such as DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or other military ID to verify veteran status to participate in the Pilot Program and to apply for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program;

    2. The applicant meets all FSA farm loan program eligibility requirements under 7 CFR 764.101 and 764.152, except the farm experience requirement which will be expedited by the Pilot Program;

    3. The applicant is not ineligible for Federal benefits based on a conviction of any Federal or State controlled substance offense (see 7 CFR 764.101(a));

    4. The applicant is of legal age, and has mental capacity and authority to enter into a legally binding agreement (see 7 CFR 764.101(b));

    5. The applicant meets citizenship requirements (see 7 CFR 764.101(c));

    6. The applicant provides a credit report from one of the three main credit reporting agencies at the time of orientation to the Pilot Program. If a history of failures to repay past debts as they came due was out of the control of the applicant, the applicant may wish to submit a written description of the circumstances for the consideration of the committee. Lack of credit history or isolated incidents of delinquent payments is not considered poor credit. Credit scores are not used to make a determination of credit worthiness (see 7 CFR 764.101(d));

    7. The applicant has properly fulfilled prior obligations to other parties, including other agencies of the Federal Government (see 7 CFR 764.101(d)(2));

    8. The applicant is unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere to finance actual needs at reasonable rates and terms. When the loan application is filed, FSA will evaluate the ability to obtain credit based on factors including, but not limited to:

    a. Loan amounts, rates, and terms available in the marketplace; and

    b. Property interests, income, and significant non-essential assets (see 7 CFR 764.101(e));

    9. The applicant meets the unpaid Federal judgement and delinquent Federal debt requirements in 7 CFR 764.101(f) and (g);

    10. The applicant meets the Federal Crop Insurance Violations requirements in 7 CFR 764.101(h); and

    11. The applicant meets the prior debt forgiveness requirements in 7 CFR 764.152(b).

    Application and Submission Information

    Each veteran must complete an electronic application for the Battleground to Breaking Ground Program through Texas A&M's website, http://txagrability.tamu.edu/. In addition, in order to participate in the Pilot Program, the applicant must self-certify to the eligibility requirements discussed above and provided at the Texas A&M website. The application period will open June 15, 2018, and close on July 20, 2018 no later than 11 p.m. CST. No applications will be accepted after the due date.

    Application Review Information

    Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program employees will score and rank the “Battlefield to Breaking Ground” applications using the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program matrix. FSA will look at the top ranked applicants from the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program scoring and will select, in order of ranking, the top 15 to 18 applications. FSA will then confirm eligibility on the selected applications for participation in the Pilot Program. In the case of a tied score for the Pilot Program selection, FSA will review the applicant's narrative addressing the applicant's readiness to farm to make a selection. The readiness to farm question is part of the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program application. Applicants not selected for the Pilot Program due to FSA's loan eligibility criteria will still have the option to participate in the “Battleground to Breaking Ground” program at the discretion of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program will notify all applicants by email.

    Applicants will not be considered a participant in the Pilot Program until after they have signed an expectation agreement supplied by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension program as part of its existing veterans “Battleground to Breaking Ground” program. The expectation agreement specifies the requirements for completion of the “Battleground to Breaking Ground” program.

    Program Completion

    Successful completion of the Pilot Program will result in the veteran receiving a certificate from FSA as well as a developed business plan. Successful completion will also result in the veteran being conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program. The veteran should apply for the loan within 2 years of successfully completing the Pilot Program, unless the business plan is based on a later start date.

    Participants who do not complete the Pilot Program may not be considered conditionally eligible for either a Microloan or Downpayment Loan through the FO Program.

    Other Provisions

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.ascr.usda.gov/filing-program-discrimination-complaint-usda-customer, and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, you may call (866) 632-9992. You may submit your completed form or letter to any of the following options:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    Email: [email protected]

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Richard Fordyce, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11873 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Rural Housing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection; comments requested.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's (RHS) intention to request a revision for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 3, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Birmingham, Finance and Loan Analyst, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, RHS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0783, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-0783, Telephone (202) 720-1489.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 7 CFR 1944-I, Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants.

    OMB Number: 0575-0043.

    Expiration Date of Approval: October 31, 2018.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: This subpart set forth the policies and procedures and delegates authority for providing technical assistance funds to eligible applicants to finance programs of technical and supervisory assistance for self-help housing loan program, as authorized under section 523 of the Housing Act of 1949 under 42 U.S.C. 1472. This financial assistance may pay part or all of the cost of developing, administering or coordinating program of technical and supervisory assistance to aid very low- and low-income families in carrying out self-help housing efforts in rural areas. The primary purpose is to locate and work with families that otherwise do not qualify as homeowners, are below the 50 percent of median incomes, and living in substandard housing.

    RHS will be collecting information from non-profit organizations to enter into grant agreements. These non-profit organizations will give technical and supervisory assistance, and in doing so, they must develop a final application for section 523 grant funds. This application includes Agency forms that contain essential information for making a determination of eligibility.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .95 hours per response.

    Respondents: Public or private nonprofit organizations, State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 130.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 24.77.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 3,220.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,058.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0040.

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

    Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250.

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

    Dated: May 23, 2018. Joel C. Baxley, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11867 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE AND TIME:

    Wednesday, June 6, 2018, 12:30 p.m. ET.

    PLACE:

    Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20237.

    SUBJECT:

    Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

    SUMMARY:

    The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its March 14, 2018 meeting, a resolution honoring the the 65th anniversary of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) Armenian Service—Azatutyun Radiokayan, a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Georgian Service—Radio Tavisupleba, a resolution honoring the 65th Anniversary of RFE/RL's Kazakh Service—Radio Azattyq, a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Kyrgyz Service—Radio Azattyk, a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Tajik Service—Radio Ozodi, and a resolution honoring the 65th anniversary of RFE/RL's Uzbek Service—Radio Ozodlik. The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG.

    This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public website at www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's public website.

    The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at https://bbgboardmeetingjune2018.eventbrite.com by 12:00 p.m. (ET) on June 5. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-4400 or by email at [email protected]

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

    Oanh Tran, Managing Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11948 Filed 5-31-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is requesting nominations of individuals and organizations to the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations (Committee). The Census Bureau will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice provides Committee and membership criteria.

    DATES:

    Please submit nominations by August 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit nominations to the [email protected] (subject line “2018 NAC Nominations”), or by letter submission to Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, 2018 NAC Nominations, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, Customer Liaison Marketing Services Offices, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-5222 or at [email protected] For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix 2. The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process.

    Objectives and Duties

    1. The Committee advises the Director of the Census Bureau (the Director) on the full range of economic, housing, demographic, socioeconomic, linguistic, technological, methodological, geographic, behavioral, and operational variables affecting the cost, accuracy, and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys, including the decennial census.

    2. The Committee advises the Census Bureau on the identification of new strategies for improved census operations, and survey and data collection methods, including identifying cost efficient ways to increase response rates.

    3. The Committee provides guidance on census policies, research and methodology, tests, operations, communications/messaging, and other activities to ascertain needs and best practices to improve censuses, surveys, operations, and programs.

    4. The Committee reviews and provides formal recommendations and feedback on working papers, reports, and other documents related to the design and implementation of Census Bureau programs and surveys.

    5. In providing insight, perspectives, and expertise on the full spectrum of Census Bureau surveys and programs, the Committee examines such areas as hidden households, language barriers, students and youth, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, poverty, race/ethnic distribution, privacy and confidentiality, rural populations and businesses, individuals and households with limited access to information and communications technologies, the dynamic nature of new businesses, minority ownership of businesses, as well as other concerns impacting Census Bureau survey design and implementation.

    6. The Committee uses formal advisory committee meetings, webinars, web conferences, working groups, and other methods to accomplish its goals, consistent with the requirements of the FACA. The Committee will consult with regional office staff to help identify regional, local, tribal and grass roots issues, trends and perspectives related to Census Bureau surveys and programs.

    7. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body under the FACA.

    Membership

    1. The Committee consists of up to 32 members who serve at the discretion of the Director. The Census Bureau is seeking seven qualified candidates to be considered for appointment.

    2. The Committee aims to have a balanced representation among its members, considering such factors as geography, age, sex, race, ethnicity, technical expertise, community involvement, and knowledge of census programs and/or activities.

    3. The Committee aims to include members from diverse backgrounds, including state, local and tribal governments; academia; research, national and community-based organizations; and, the private sector.

    4. Members will be selected from the public and private sectors. Members may serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or representatives who are selected to represent specific organizations.

    5. SGEs and representatives will be selected based on their expertise in or representation of specific areas to include: Diverse populations (including race and ethnic populations); national, state, local, and tribal interest organizations serving hard-to-count populations; researchers; community-based organizations; academia; business interests; marketing and media professionals; researchers; and, members of professional associations. Members will be individually advised of the capacity in which they will serve through their appointment letters.

    6. Membership is open to persons who are not seated on other Census Bureau stakeholder entities (i.e., State Data Centers, Census Information Centers, Federal State Cooperative on Populations Estimates Program, other Census Advisory Committees, etc.). People who have already served one full-term on a Census Bureau Advisory Committee may not serve on any other Census Bureau Advisory Committee for three years from the termination of previous service. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the Committee.

    7. Members will serve for a three-year term. All members will be reevaluated at the conclusion of each term with the prospect of renewal, pending Committee needs. Active attendance and participation in meetings and activities (e.g., conference calls and assignments) will be factors considered when determining term renewal or membership continuance. Members may be appointed for a second three-year term at the discretion of the Director.

    8. Members will be selected on a standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

    Miscellaneous

    1. Members of the Committee serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for Committee-related travel and lodging expenses.

    2. The Committee meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Officer. All Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.

    Nomination Process

    1. Nominations should satisfy the requirements described in the Membership section above.

    2. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resume´ or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, Committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special committee activities.

    3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Ron S. Jarmin, Associate Director for Economic Programs, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11884 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-806] Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD duty order.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karine Gziryan or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4081 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 10, 1991, Commerce published in the Federal Register the AD order on silicon metal from China.1 On March 3, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the Order, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 Commerce conducted this sunset review on an expedited basis, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) because it received a complete timely, and adequate response from a domestic interested party 3 but no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result of its review, Commerce determined pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. Commerce also notified the ITC of the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail should the Order be revoked.4 On May 21, 2018, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD duty order on silicon metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

    1See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 26649 (June 10, 1991) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 82 FR 12438 (March 3, 2017).

    3See Letter from Domestic Interested Party (Globe) re Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China; Fourth Sunset Review; Notice of Intent to Participate dated March 3, 2017.

    4See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 30841 (July 3, 2017) (Final Results).

    5See Silicon Metal from China: Fourth Review, Investigation No. 731-TA-472, 83 FR 23484-01 (May 21, 2018).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Issues and Decision memorandum explaining Commerce's Final Results.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the Order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD order on silicon metal from China. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the Order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), Commerce intends to initiate the next sunset review of the Order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation. This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11904 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-056, A-552-821] Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty orders on certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (China) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).

    DATES:

    Applicable June 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yang Jin Chun or Andre Gziryan at (202) 482-5760 or (202) 482-2201, respectively (China); Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 (Vietnam); AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on April 10, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of tool chests from China and Vietnam.1 On May 24, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A) of the Act that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the LTFV imports of tool chests from China and Vietnam.2

    1See Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 15365 (April 10, 2018) (China Final) and Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 15361 (April 10, 2018) (Vietnam Final).

    2See Notification Letter from the ITC dated May 24, 2018 (ITC Letter).

    Scope of the Orders

    The product covered by these orders is tool chests. For a complete description for the scope of the orders, see Appendix I of this notice.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    On May 24, 2018, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of tool chests from China and Vietnam.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, Commerce is issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of tool chests from China and Vietnam are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China and Vietnam, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    3See ITC Letter.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 16, 2017, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations, 4 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    4See Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 53456 (November 16, 2017) (China Prelim) and Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 FR 53452 (November 16, 2017) (Vietnam Prelim) (collectively, Preliminary Determinations).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amount as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the cash deposit rates listed below.5 The respective rate for the China-wide entity and the Vietnam-wide entity applies to all exporters not specifically listed. For the purpose of determining cash deposit rates for China, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for imports of subject merchandise from China have been adjusted, as appropriate, for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through rates calculated based on the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of tool chests from China.6

    5See sections 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    6See China Final, 83 FR at 15367.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request Commerce to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of tool chests from China and Vietnam, respectively, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in each case.7 In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the preliminary determinations on November 16, 2017. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the Preliminary Determinations, ended on May 14, 2018. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    7See China Prelim, 82 FR at 53458-59 and Vietnam Prelim, 82 FR at 53454.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice,8 we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of tool chests from China and Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after May 14, 2018, the date the provisional measures expired, through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    8See, e.g., Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 48390 (July 25, 2016).

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    For China, the weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages and cash deposit percentages are as follows:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash
  • deposit
  • (percent)
  • The Tongrun Single Entity Changshu City Jiangrun Metal Product Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 The Tongrun Single Entity The Tongrun Single Entity 97.11 93.94 Changzhou Machan Steel Furniture Co., Ltd Changzhou Machan Steel Furniture Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Guangdong Hisense Home Appliances Co., Ltd Guangdong Hisense Home Appliances Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Hyxion Metal Industry Hyxion Metal Industry 97.11 93.94 Jin Rong Hua Le Metal Manufactures Co., Ltd Jin Rong Hua Le Metal Manufactures Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Ningbo Safewell International Holding Corp Zhejiang Xiunan Leisure Products Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Pinghu Chenda Storage Office Equipment Co., Ltd Pinghu Chenda Storage Office Equipment Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Pooke Technology Co., Ltd Pooke Technology Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Shanghai All-Fast International Trade Co., Ltd Kunshan Trusteel Industry Co. Ltd 97.11 93.94 Shanghai All-Fast International Trade Co., Ltd Shanghai All-Hop Industry Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Shanghai All-Fast International Trade Co., Ltd Shanghai Hom-Steel Industry Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Shanghai All-Hop Industry Co., Ltd Shanghai All-Hop Industry Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 Trantex Product (Zhong Shan) Co., Ltd Trantex Product (Zhong Shan) Co., Ltd 97.11 93.94 China-Wide Entity 244.29 241.12

    For Vietnam, the weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentage is as follows:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Vietnam-Wide Entity 327.17

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to tool chests from China and Vietnam pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Orders

    The scope of these orders covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the People's Republic of China (China) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:

    (1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals;

    (2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;

    (3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches;

    (4) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and

    (5) prepackaged for retail sale.

    For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit, i.e., each individual top chest, intermediate top chest, tool cabinet, side cabinet, storage unit, mobile work bench, and work station.

    Prepackaged for retail sale means the units may, for example, be packaged in a cardboard box, other type of container or packaging, and may bear a Universal Product Code, along with photographs, pictures, images, features, artwork, and/or product specifications. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in China or Vietnam but assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in China or Vietnam that are assembled, prepackaged for retail sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (e.g., stainless steel), painted, powder coated, galvanized, or otherwise coated for corrosion protection or aesthetic appearance.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and mobile work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.

    Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (e.g., bolts) and instructions for assembling them onto the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate tool chest which rests on the base tool cabinet. Smaller top chests typically have handles on the sides, while the larger top chests typically lack handles. Intermediate tool chests are designed to fit on top of the floor standing tool cabinet and to be used underneath the top tool chest. Although they may be packaged or used separately from the tool cabinet, intermediate chests are designed to be used in conjunction with tool cabinets. The intermediate chests typically do not have handles. The intermediate and top chests may have the capability of being bolted together.

    Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs, the tools are not part of the subject merchandise.

    All tool chests and cabinets that meet the above definition are included in the scope unless otherwise specifically excluded.

    Excluded from the scope of these orders are tool boxes, chests, and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, or other non-metallic substances.

    Also excluded from the scope of these orders are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:

    (1) Having a body that is over 60 inches in width; or

    (2) having each of the following physical characteristics:

    (a) a body made of steel that is 0.047 inches or more in thickness;

    (b) a body depth (front to back) exceeding 21 inches; and

    (c) a unit weight that exceeds the maximum unit weight shown below for each width range:

    EN04JN18.006

    Also excluded from the scope of these orders are service carts. The excluded service carts have all of the following characteristics:

    (1) Casters, wheels, or other similar devices which allow the service cart to be rolled from place to place;

    (2) an open top for storage, a flat top, or a flat lid on top of the unit that opens;

    (3) a space or gap between the casters, wheels, or other similar devices, and the bottom of the enclosed storage space (e.g., drawers) of at least 10 inches; and

    (4) a total unit height, including casters, of less than 48 inches.

    Also excluded from the scope of these orders are non-mobile work benches. The excluded non-mobile work benches have all of the following characteristics:

    (1) A solid top working surface;

    (2) no drawers, one drawer, or two drawers in a side-by-side configuration; and

    (3) the unit is supported by legs and has no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit.

    Also excluded from the scope of these orders are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.

    Merchandise subject to these orders is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030, 9403.20.0080, 9403.20.0090, and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-11905 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG272 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee will hold a public meeting via conference call.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via conference call by dialing 1-800-832-0736 and entering room number 9294759.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; website: www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee will meet via conference call to discuss possible support for research on surfclam genetics.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11898 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG182 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Joint notice of receipt and notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received one permit application from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) to enhance propagation and survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for a five-year period (with a five-year renewal). As part of this permit application, the District has submitted a Rescue and Rearing Management Plan (RRMP). The RRMP specifies operational methods for South-Central California Coast (S-CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) rescue, rearing, and relocation activities associated with the Sleepy Hollow Steelhead Rearing Facility (Facility). The Facility is located on the Carmel River on the Central California Coast. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the permit application and associated RRMP for review and comment prior to a decision by NMFS whether to issue the permit. The permit application and associated RRMP can be viewed online at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/hatcheries/carmel_rrmp/carmel_rrmp_nor.html.

    DATES:

    Comments or requests for a public hearing on applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see Addresses) no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the application should be submitted to the California Coastal Office, NMFS, c/o Erin Seghesio, 777 Sonoma Avenue Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Comments may also be submitted via fax to 707-578-3435, or by email to: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email the following identifier: Comments on Permit 14741.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Seghesio at 707-578-8515, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Species Covered in This Notice

    The following listed species are covered in this notice:

    Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Threatened, South-Central California Coast (S-CCC).

    Authority:

    Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-227). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permit.

    Any one requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

    Permit Applications Received Permit 14741

    The District has applied for a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for a period of five years (with a five-year renewal) that would allow take of juvenile and adult steelhead from the threatened S-CCC Distinct Population Segment (DPS) pursuant to an RRMP, which was developed with technical assistance from NMFS. The objective of the District's program is to assist with the restoration, conservation, and maintenance of the steelhead population in the Carmel River Watershed as mitigation for environmental impacts caused by diversion of surface and subsurface streamflow in the lower 24 miles of the mainstem Carmel River. The program which was initiated in 1997, was necessary to ensure compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from the environmental impacts of California American Water Company's water withdrawals.

    The RRMP will be implemented as an enhancement program at the Facility; actions taken pursuant to the permit are designed to enhance survival of S-CCC steelhead that are subject to annual low-flow river dryback. The RRMP incorporates three main components: (1) Rescue and relocation activities; (2) captive rearing activities; and (3) subsequent post-release monitoring. There is no captive spawning of steelhead reared at the facility.

    Activities that constitute take of S-CCC steelhead and would be permitted include: Rearing, handling and transport, and tagging. The RRMP includes measures to minimize the likelihood of genetic or ecologic effects to naturally produced S-CCC steelhead resulting from operations at the Facility, and rescue and translocation activities. Post-release monitoring activities conducted by the District will collect necessary data to document achievement of performance indicators specified in the RRMP. For a more detailed discussion of these activities, please see the permit application.

    Public Comments Solicited

    NMFS invites the public to comment on the permit application and associated RRMP during a 30 day public comment period beginning on the date of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1529(c)). All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these documents.

    Next Steps

    NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted during the comment period to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day public comment period and after NMFS has fully considered all relevant comments received. NMFS will publish public notice of its final action in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11863 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG275 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Working Group (WG) of the Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) and NTAP as a whole of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 19, beginning at 9 a.m. and conclude by 5 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Boston Logan Airport located on 100 Boardman St., Boston, MA 02128.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this WG meeting is to: (1) Review options and recommend preferred research plan for re-obligating industry vessel sea days funds (Nobska), (2) develop workplan for FY18-20, (3) define criteria for Bigelow trawl gear performance, and (4) describe potential flume tank experiments. The purpose of the NTAP as a whole meeting is to: (1) Review updates on the revised NTAP charter and Bigelow operations, (2) review, adopt or revise NTAP WG recommendations from last meeting, (3) review the status of summer flounder catchability and gear performance analyses, (4) review a briefing on the Bigelow/Albatross time series, (5) adopt a regular meeting schedule for full NTAP and WG, and (6) cover other business.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11894 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG269 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Bluefish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 24, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC's website: www.mafmc.org.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their website at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Monitoring Committee to develop and approve management measures designed to achieve the recommended bluefish catch and landings limits for 2019.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11897 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF448 Record of Decision for the Final Portland Harbor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Restoration Plan AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a Record of Decision.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Portland Harbor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Restoration Plan (PEIS/RP). The NOAA Restoration Center Chief and the Assessment and Restoration Division Chief signed the ROD on May 29, 2018, which constitutes the agency's final decision.

    ADDRESSES:

    Christopher Doley, Chief, Restoration Center, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Tony Penn, Chief, Assessment and Restoration Division, NOAA Ocean Service, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan Callahan Grant at (503) 231-2213 or email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NOAA, on behalf of the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Trustee Council, prepared the Final Portland Harbor PEIS/RP. The PEIS/RP was prepared under the authority of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and was also developed to comply with the Federal agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NOAA's environmental review procedures (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, as preserved by NAO 216-6A). The document was designed to solicit public opinion on a proposed restoration approach for the Portland Harbor natural resource damage assessment (NRDA). The ROD documents the Trustee Council's decision to select Integrated Habitat Restoration Planning as the preferred alternative under NEPA because this alternative is most suited to fulfill the goal of the NRDA to restore injured natural resources and services and it meets the purpose and need for restoration planning. This alternative is specifically designed to improve habitats that function in support of multiple fish and wildlife species, as well as the food base for these species. This approach is expected to deliver broad ecosystem benefits concentrated within and around the area where the injuries to natural resources and natural resources services have taken place. This alternative would consist of habitat restoration actions implemented within geographic priority areas within and around the Portland Harbor Superfund Study Area. The scale of restoration activity that will be implemented by the Trustee Council under the PEIS/RP will depend upon the resolution of natural resource damage claims with the parties responsible for releases of hazardous substances and oil. Under CERCLA, settlements received by the Trustee Council, either through negotiated or adjudicated processes, must be used to restore, rehabilitate, replace, and/or acquire the equivalent of those natural resources that have been injured. The Final PEIS/RP will guide future Trustee Council decision-making regarding the expenditure of settlements and the implementation of restoration activities.

    NOAA is not soliciting comments on the PEIS/RP but will consider any comments submitted that would assist us in preparing future NEPA documents. An electronic copy of the PEIS/RP is available at: https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Contaminants/PortlandHarbor/Documents/201706_FINAL_PEIS.pdf. Electronic correspondence regarding it can be submitted to [email protected]. Otherwise, please submit any written comments via U.S. mail to the responsible official named in the ADDRESSES section.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Carrie D. Selberg, Deputy Director, Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11906 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG274 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has requested the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) to conduct a peer review of the agency's stock assessments for the Aleutian Islands golden king crab (AIGKC) and Norton Sound red king crab (NSRKC) stocks. The CIE is a group affiliated with the University of Miami that provides independent peer reviews of NMFS science nationwide, including reviews of stock assessments for fish, shellfish and marine mammals. The AIGKC and NSRKC stock assessments are reviewed annually by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) Crab Plan Team, and the NPFMC Scientific and Statistical Committee. The CIE review will examine whether the assessments incorporate the best scientific information available for making management decisions and whether they provide reasonable approaches to understanding the population dynamics and stock status for the AIGKC and NSRKC stocks. The public is invited to attend and observe the presentations and discussions between the CIE panel and the NMFS and Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) scientists who designed the underlying assessment models, collected the data, and performed the stock assessments.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, June 18, 2018, through Thursday, June 21, 2018 from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349. Visitors will need to provide proper ID and sign in at the front desk.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Stockhausen, AFSC staff; telephone: (206) 526-4241.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CIE panel will consist of three peer reviewers who will assess materials related to the topics, participate in a review workshop with the NMFS and ADFG scientists who developed the assessment models and the analytical approaches, and produce a report. This review will be highly technical in nature and will cover mathematical details of the analytical approaches.

    Members of the public are invited to observe, and will be provided opportunities to contribute on June 18-20, 2018. The final report will be available prior to the September NPFMC Plan Team meetings and will consist of individual reports from each panelist and a summary report. The results of the review will be presented during the September 2018 NPFMC Crab Plan Team meeting, which will be announced later in the Federal Register.

    Special Accommodations

    These workshops will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Laura Oremland, (301) 427-8162, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11893 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG265 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    NOAA Fisheries is notifying the public of the receipt of two applications for Endangered Species Act section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement permits for hatchery programs rearing fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received applications for renewal of two enhancement permit applications pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section for hatchery operations rearing and releasing Snake River fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin of Idaho. The applications are in the form of two existing hatchery and genetic management plans (HGMPs) and an addendum. This new addendum and the associated HGMPs describe programs operated by the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and funded by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Lower Snake Compensation Plan (LSRCP), Idaho Power Company (IPC), and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). This document serves to notify the public of the availability of these materials for review and comment prior to a decision by NMFS as to whether to issue the permit.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received at the appropriate address (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written responses to the addendum should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following identifier: Comments on Snake River fall Chinook hatchery permits.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Natasha Preston at (503) 231-2178 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ESA-Listed Species Covered in This Notice

    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally and artificially propagated Snake River fall-run.

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits to take listed species for any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

    The co-managers and funding agencies, including the NPT, WDFW, ODFW, IDFG, LSRCP, IPC, and BPA, have submitted to NMFS applications for two permits, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, for hatchery activities in the Snake River basin. The applications are in the form of two existing HGMPs and an addendum with updates to those HGMPs.

    The addendum and previously submitted HGMPs describe actions involving hatchery activities (with associated monitoring and evaluation) in the Snake River basin. The programs are intended to contribute to the survival and recovery of Snake River Fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin, and to responsibly enhance fishing opportunity on hatchery-origin returns.

    Authority

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate each application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. If it is determined that the requirements are met, permits will be issued to the NPT, WDFW, ODFW, IDFG, LSRCP, IPC, and BPA for the purpose of carrying out the hatchery programs. NMFS will publish a record of its final action in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11934 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG268 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Bluefish Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Bluefish Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, June 25, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on the proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials will be posted at the MAFMC's website: www.mafmc.org.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their website at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Advisory Panel to create a fishery performance report (FPR). The intent of this report is to facilitate a venue for structured input from the Advisory Panel for the bluefish specifications process. The FPR will be used by the MAFMC's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Bluefish Monitoring Committee (MC) when setting 2019 management measures designed to achieve the recommended bluefish catch and landings limits. In addition, the MAFMC and ASMFC will consider input from the Advisory Panels in August when reviewing these specifications.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11896 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG277 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 567-6789.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The committee will discuss the EBFM Plan Development Team report. They will also provide feedback on an initial draft “Ecosystem Risk Assessment for the Georges Bank Ecosystem Production Unit”. The committee will discuss the “2018 Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Strategy Independent Peer Review” Report as well as receive a report about a draft “Northeast Regional Implementation Plan of NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Roadmap”. They will discuss a draft strawman outline of an example prototype Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP) and identification of tasks and timeline to complete an eFEP. Discuss other business as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11918 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG276 Fisheries of the Caribbean; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Data Webinar for Caribbean Spiny Lobster AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 57 Data Workshop for U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 57 assessment of the U.S. Caribbean spiny lobster will consist of: A Data Workshop; a series of Assessment webinars; and a Review Workshop.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 57 Data Workshop will be held from 10 a.m. on June 20, 2018 until 3 p.m. on June 22, 2018; the Assessment workshop and webinars and Review Workshop dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The SEDAR 57 Data Workshop will be held at the Verdanaz Hotel, 8020 Tartak Street, Isla Verde, Carolina PR 00979.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing workshops and webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Data Workshop agenda are as follows:

    1. An assessment data set and associated documentation will be developed.

    2. Participants will evaluate all available data and select appropriate sources for providing information on life history characteristics, catch statistics, discard estimates, length and age composition, and fishery dependent and fishery independent measures of stock abundance, as specified in the Terms of Reference for the workshop.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11895 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action deletes product(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Date deleted from the Procurement List: July 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Deletions

    On 4/27/2018 (83 FR 82), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-475-4554—Drawers, Cold Weather Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Long, Brown, XXLXXL 8415-01-475-4561—Drawers, Cold Weather Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Long, Brown, XXXL 8415-00-0DR-W656—Drawers, Cold Weather, Army, Unisex, Long, Brown, Special Measurement Mandatory Sources of Supply: Four Rivers Resource Services, Inc., Linton, IN; New Horizons Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI; Casco Area Workshop, Inc., Harrisonville, MO NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-227-9542—Drawers, Cold Weather, Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Ankle Length, Brown, XS 8415-01-227-9543—Drawers, Cold Weather, Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Ankle Length, Brown, S 8415-01-227-9544—Drawers, Cold Weather, Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Ankle Length, Brown, M 8415-01-227-9545—Drawers, Cold Weather, Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Ankle Length, Brown, L 8415-01-227-9546—Drawers, Cold Weather, Knitted/Terry, ECWCS, Army, Unisex, Ankle Length, Brown, XL Mandatory Sources of Supply: Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY New Horizons Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; Four Rivers Resource Services, Inc., Linton, IN; Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI; Casco Area Workshop, Inc., Harrisonville, MO NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-327-4825—Cover, Helmet, Parachutists, Army, Desert Camouflage, Medium/Large 8415-01-327-4826—Cover, Helmet, Parachutists, Army, Desert Camouflage, X Large Mandatory Sources of Supply: Chautauqua County Chapter, NYSARC, Jamestown, NY; Mount Rogers Community Services Board, Wytheville, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-103-1350—Cover, Helmet, Parachutist, Army, Desert Camouflage, ML Mandatory Source of Supply: North Bay Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Rohnert Park, CA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-525-6673—Cover, Fits over Combat Helmet, PASGT, Army, Desert Camouflage 8415-01-525-6685—Cover, Fits over Combat Helmet, PASGT, Army, Desert Camouflage 8415-00-926-5113—Coverall, Industrial, Safety, Lint-free, Army, Long Sleeved, Tan, Large 8415-00-939-7879—Coverall, Industrial, Safety, Lint-free, Army, Long Sleeved, Tan, X Small 8415-00-939-7880—Coverall, Industrial, Safety, Lint-free, Army, Long Sleeved, Tan, S 8415-00-939-7881—Coverall, Industrial, Safety, Lint-free, Army, Long Sleeved, Tan, M 8415-00-939-7882—Coverall, Industrial, Safety, Lint-free, Army, Long Sleeved, Tan, X Large Mandatory Source of Supply: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY

    The following information is applicable to all products listed above.

    Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support
    Amy Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11830 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: July 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition(s)

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8410-01-413-2735—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 2 Short 8410-01-413-2737—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 2 Regular 8410-01-413-2739—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 2 Long 8410-01-413-2741—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 4 Short 8410-01-413-2743—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 4 Regular 8410-01-413-2746—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 4 Long 8410-01-413-2748—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 6 Short 8410-01-413-2750—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 6 Regular 8410-01-413-2755—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 6 Long 8410-01-413-2757—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 8 Short 8410-01-413-2760—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 8 Regular 8410-01-413-2762—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 8 Long 8410-01-413-2783—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 10 Short 8410-01-413-2785—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 10 Regular 8410-01-413-2787—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 10 Long 8410-01-413-2792—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 12 Short 8410-01-413-2795—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 12 Regular 8410-01-413-2801—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 12 Long 8410-01-413-2975—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 14 Short 8410-01-413-2987—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 14 Regular 8410-01-413-2989—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 14 Long 8410-01-413-2991—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 16 Short 8410-01-413-3085—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 16 Regular 8410-01-413-3087—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 16 Long 8410-01-413-3894—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 2 Short 8410-01-413-3895—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 2 Regular 8410-01-413-3896—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 2 Long 8410-01-413-3897—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 4 Short 8410-01-413-3898—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 4 Regular 8410-01-413-3900—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 4 Long 8410-01-413-3901—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 6 Short 8410-01-413-3902—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 6 Regular 8410-01-413-4901—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 6 Long 8410-01-413-4904—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 8 Short 8410-01-413-4908—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 8 Regular 8410-01-413-4909—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Blue, Size 8 Long 8410-01-413-4911—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 10 Short 8410-01-413-4912—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 10 Regular 8410-01-413-4914—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 10 Long 8410-01-413-4916—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 12 Short 8410-01-413-4918—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 12 Regular 8410-01-413-4920—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 12 Long 8410-01-413-4921—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 14 Short 8410-01-413-4922—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 14 Regular 8410-01-413-4924—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 14 Long 8410-01-413-4927—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 16 Short 8410-01-413-4933—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 16 Regular 8410-01-413-4935—Skirt, USMC, Women's, Green, Size 16 Long Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the U.S. Marine Corps Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., Dallas, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 2530-01-337-7324—Parts Kit, Air Filter Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc., Raleigh, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7920-00-655-5290—Pad, Scouring, Synthetic, Heavy Duty, Yellow and Green, 41/2″ x 3″ x 1/2 Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8105-00-NIB-1437—Envelopes, Packing List, 41/2″ x 51/2 Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, San Angelo, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6230-00-NIB-0066—Work Light, LED, Articulating Arm, Red and Black Mandatory for: Broad Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: B-List Amy Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11831 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0032] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Security Services, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Security Services (DSS) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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 August 3, 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 DSS Industrial Security Office, Planning & Execution: Jamaar Deboise, Quantico, VA 22134, or call DSS Industrial Security Office at 571-305-6648.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Voice of Industry Survey; OMB Control Number 0704-0472.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide feedback on DSS performance with respect to the administration and implementation of the National Industrial Security Program (NISP).

    Affected Public: Individual or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 6,469 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 12,938.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 12,938.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents are government contracting activity (GCA) personnel who have a partnership with the DSS regarding the cleared contractors associated with their activities' program(s). The completed surveys will be analyzed by DSS in order to obtain information on DSS relationships with GCAs, and actions will be determined based on feedback from respondents to continue to improve the utility and efficacy of DSS programs and products for government partners.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11885 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Stakeholder Representative Members of the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is soliciting applications to fill vacant stakeholder representative member positions on the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC). Members are sought to fill vacancies on a committee to represent various categories of interests within the Missouri River basin. The MRRIC was formed to advise the Corps on a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries and to provide guidance to the Corps with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities currently underway. The Corps established the MRRIC as required by the U.S. Congress through the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA), Section 5018.

    DATES:

    The agency must receive completed applications and endorsement letters no later than July 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail completed applications and endorsement letters to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District (Attn: MRRIC), 601 E 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 or email completed applications to [email protected]. Please put “MRRIC” in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Rabbe, 816-389-3837.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The operation of the MRRIC is in the public interest and provides support to the Corps in performing its duties and responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Sec. 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Public Law 99-662; Sec. 334(a) of WRDA 1999, Public Law 106-53, and Sec. 5018 of WRDA 2007, Public Law 110-114. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, does not apply to the MRRIC.

    A Charter for the MRRIC has been developed and should be reviewed prior to applying for a stakeholder representative membership position on the Committee. The Charter, operating procedures, and stakeholder application forms are available electronically at www.MRRIC.org.

    Purpose and Scope of the Committee

    1. The primary purpose of the MRRIC is to provide guidance to the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan currently in existence, including recommendations relating to changes to the implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management; coordination of the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan. Information about the Missouri River Recovery Program is available at www.MoRiverRecovery.org.

    2. Other duties of MRRIC include exchange of information regarding programs, projects, and activities of the agencies and entities represented on the Committee to promote the goals of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; establishment of such working groups as the Committee determines to be necessary to assist in carrying out the duties of the Committee, including duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; coordination of scientific and other research associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests.

    Administrative Support. To the extent authorized by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Corps provides funding and administrative support for the Committee.

    Committee Membership. Federal agencies with programs affecting the Missouri River may be members of the MRRIC through a separate process with the Corps. States and Federally recognized Native American Indian tribes, as described in the Charter, are eligible for Committee membership through an appointment process. Interested State and Tribal government representatives should contact the Corps for information about the appointment process.

    This Notice is for individuals interested in serving as a stakeholder member on the Committee. Members and alternates must be able to demonstrate that they meet the definition of “stakeholder” found in the Charter of the MRRIC. Applications are currently being accepted for representation in the stakeholder interest categories listed below:

    a. Environmental/Conservation Org;

    b. Hydropower;

    c. Local Government;

    d. Major Tributaries;

    e. Navigation;

    f. Recreation;

    g. Thermal Power; and

    h. Water Supply

    Terms of stakeholder representative members of the MRRIC are three years. There is no limit to the number of terms a member may serve. Incumbent Committee members seeking reappointment do not need to re-submit an application. However, they must submit a renewal letter and related materials as outlined in the “Streamlined Process for Existing Members” portion of the document Process for Filling MRRIC Stakeholder Vacancies (www.MRRIC.org).

    Members and alternates of the Committee will not receive any compensation from the federal government for carrying out the duties of the MRRIC. Travel expenses incurred by members of the Committee are not currently reimbursed by the federal government.

    Application for Stakeholder Membership. Persons who believe that they are or will be affected by the Missouri River recovery and mitigation activities may apply for stakeholder membership on the MRRIC. Committee members are obligated to avoid and disclose any individual ethical, legal, financial, or other conflicts of interest they may have involving MRRIC. Applicants must disclose on their application if they are directly employed by a government agency or program (the term “government” encompasses state, tribal, and federal agencies and/or programs).

    Applications for stakeholder membership may be obtained electronically at www.MRRIC.org. Applications may be emailed or mailed to the location listed (see ADDRESSES). In order to be considered, each application must include:

    1. The name of the applicant and the primary stakeholder interest category that person is qualified to represent;

    2. A written statement describing the applicant's area of expertise and why the applicant believes he or she should be appointed to represent that area of expertise on the MRRIC;

    3. A written statement describing how the applicant's participation as a Stakeholder Representative will fulfill the roles and responsibilities of MRRIC;

    4. A written description of the applicant's past experience(s) working collaboratively with a group of individuals representing varied interests towards achieving a mutual goal, and the outcome of the effort(s);

    5. A written description of the communication network that the applicant plans to use to inform his or her constituents and to gather their feedback, and

    6. A written endorsement letter from an organization, local government body, or formal constituency, which demonstrates that the applicant represents an interest group(s) in the Missouri River basin.

    To be considered, the application must be complete and received by the close of business on July 27 2018, at the location indicated (see ADDRESSES). Applications must include an endorsement letter to be considered complete. Full consideration will be given to all complete applications received by the specified due date.

    Application Review Process. Committee stakeholder applications will be forwarded to the current members of the MRRIC. The MRRIC will provide membership recommendations to the Corps as described in Attachment A of the Process for Filling MRRIC Stakeholder Vacancies document (www.MRRIC.org). The Corps is responsible for appointing stakeholder members. The Corps will consider applications using the following criteria:

    • Ability to commit the time required.

    • Commitment to make a good faith (as defined in the Charter) effort to seek balanced solutions that address multiple interests and concerns.

    • Agreement to support and adhere to the approved MRRIC Charter and Operating Procedures.

    • Demonstration of a formal designation or endorsement by an organization, local government, or constituency as its preferred representative.

    • Demonstration of an established communication network to keep constituents informed and efficiently seek their input when needed.

    • Agreement to participate in collaboration training as a condition of membership.

    All applicants will be notified in writing as to the final decision about their application.

    Certification. I hereby certify that the establishment of the MRRIC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Corps by the Endangered Species Act and other statutes.

    Dated: May 18, 2018. Mark Harberg, Program Manager for the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP).
    [FR Doc. 2018-11891 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Request for Information (RFI) on Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) Metrics in the U.S. for System and Subsystem Performance AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Request for Information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) on Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) metrics in the U.S. for system and subsystem performance. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is specifically interested in feedback on (1) the performance metrics identified within the document titled “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics” relating to performance in the U.S. marine resource, as well as any additional applications, assumptions, benefits, drawbacks, or other considerations for those metrics, (2) any performance metrics not captured within the “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics” documents, (3) considerations for baseline reference values documenting the current state of the U.S. MHK industry identified by metric and resource type, and (4) feedback specifically on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions as referenced in the document and as those TRL definitions relate to the U.S. MHK industry.

    DATES:

    Responses to the RFI must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to [email protected] Responses must be provided as attachments to an email. Include “MHK Metrics RFI” as the subject of the email. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word (.docx) attachment to the email, and no more than 10 pages in length, 12 point font, 1 inch margins. Only electronic responses will be accepted. The complete RFI document is located at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions may be addressed to [email protected] Further instruction can be found in the RFI document posted on EERE Exchange.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research institutions, government agencies, and other stakeholders on assumptions and uncertainties with metrics in the U.S. that are used to evaluate MHK system and subsystem performance. In addition to levelized cost of energy, various other metrics, as documented in “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics” (collocated with this RFI on EERE Exchange, https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov/), have historically been utilized to evaluate and track progress within the MHK industry. EERE is specifically interested in feedback on the application and limitations of those metrics that are currently used or have been used previously, and is also soliciting suggestions for new metrics or new applications of existing metrics. Feedback is requested on the content within the document titled “Existing Ocean Energy Performance Metrics”, including possible gaps, additional limitations, or further considerations. The results of this RFI may be used to inform the Water Power Technologies Office strategic planning in future years, contribute to evaluation criteria for potential future funding opportunities, and provide a baseline for U.S. input into international efforts related to Marine Renewable Energy metrics.

    Confidential Business Information

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

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2018. Alejandro Moreno, Director, Water Power Technologies Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11941 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Availability of Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Washington AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Washington (Draft WIR Evaluation). The Draft WIR Evaluation demonstrates that the tanks and ancillary structures, from which waste has been or will be removed, and their residual waste at closure of Waste Management Area C (WMA C) is waste that is incidental to reprocessing, is not high-level radioactive waste (HLW), and may be managed (disposed in-place) as low-level radioactive waste (LLW). DOE prepared the Draft WIR Evaluation pursuant to DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and the criteria in DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. DOE is consulting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before finalizing this evaluation. DOE is also making the Draft WIR Evaluation available for comment from States, Tribal Nations, and the public. After consultation with NRC, carefully considering comments received, and performing any necessary revisions of analyses and technical documents, DOE will prepare a final WIR evaluation and potentially make a determination as to whether the WMA C tanks, ancillary structures, and their residuals at closure of WMA C are wastes that are incidental to reprocessing, which may be managed and disposed of as LLW.

    DATES:

    DOE invites comment on the Draft WIR Evaluation during a 96-day comment period beginning June 4, 2018, and ending on September 7, 2018. A public meeting on the Draft WIR Evaluation will be held on June 18, 2018. Before the scheduled meeting, DOE will issue stakeholder and media notifications and publish an additional notice in the local newspaper providing the date, time, and location of the public meeting. Information on the public meeting date and location also will be available before the scheduled meeting at the website listed in ADDRESSES.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Draft WIR Evaluation is available on the internet at https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/WasteManagementAreaC and is publicly available for review at the following locations: U.S. DOE Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, phone: (202) 586-5955, or fax: (202) 586-0575; and U.S. DOE Public Reading Room located at 2770 University Drive, Consolidated Information Center (CIC), Room 101L, Richland, WA 99354, phone: (509) 372-7303. Written comments should be submitted to: Mr. Jan Bovier, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354. Alternatively, comments may also be filed electronically by email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information about this Draft WIR Evaluation, please contact Mr. Jan Bovier by mail at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354, by phone at 509-376-9630, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE has conducted a multi-year program to remove the vast majority of the radioactive waste and key radionuclides contained in 16 underground, single-shell tanks (tanks which do not have secondary containment) and ancillary structures (a catch tank, a process vault with smaller tanks, diversion boxes and buried pipelines), located in WMA C at the Hanford Site. For example, approximately 96 percent of the waste volume and radionuclide activity has been removed from the largest (100 series) tanks using a series of advanced technologies. The tanks and ancillary structures previously stored or transferred a variety of wastes, including liquid waste generated by DOE and its predecessor agencies from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to produce plutonium and other nuclear material for nuclear weapons during the Manhattan Project and Cold War eras.

    DOE Manual 435.1-1, which accompanies DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, provides for a rigorous evaluation process that DOE uses to determine whether or not certain waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is incidental to reprocessing, is not HLW and may be managed as LLW. This process, in relevant part, requires demonstrating that:

    (1) The wastes have been processed, or will be processed, to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical;

    (2) The waste will be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives set out in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives; and

    (3) The waste will be managed, pursuant to DOE authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of DOE Manual 435.1-1, provided the waste will be incorporated in a solid physical form at a concentration that does not exceed the applicable concentration limits for Class C LLW as set out in 10 CFR 61.55, Waste Classification.

    The Draft WIR Evaluation documents and demonstrates that the tanks, ancillary structures, and their residual waste at closure of the WMA C will meet the above-referenced criteria in DOE Manual 435.1-1. DOE is predicating this Draft WIR Evaluation on extensive analysis and scientific rationale, using a risk-informed approach, including analyses presented in the “Performance Assessment of Waste Management Area C, Hanford Site, Washington” (WMA C PA). Specifically, this Draft WIR Evaluation shows that key radionuclides (those radionuclides which contribute most significantly to radiological dose to workers, the public, and the environment as well as radionuclides listed in 10 CFR 61.55) have been or will have been removed to the maximum extent technically and economically practical. Based on the analyses in the WMA C PA, this draft evaluation also projects that potential doses to a hypothetical member of the public and hypothetical inadvertent intruder for 1,000 years (and beyond) after WMA C closure will be well below the doses specified in the performance objectives and performance measures for LLW. In addition, the analyses demonstrate that there is reasonable expectation that safety requirements comparable to the NRC performance objectives at 10 CFR part 61, subpart C will have been met. As also shown in the Draft WIR Evaluation, the residuals, tanks, and ancillary structures at WMA C closure will have been incorporated into a solid form that does not exceed concentration limits for Class C LLW.

    Although not required by DOE Manual 435.1-1, DOE is consulting with NRC on this Draft WIR Evaluation and also making the Draft WIR Evaluation available for comment from the States, Tribal Nations, and the public. After consultation with NRC, carefully considering comments received, and performing any necessary revisions of analyses and technical documents, DOE plans to issue a final WIR Evaluation and a potential determination as to whether the WMA C tanks, ancillary structures, and their residual waste at the time of WMA C closure is non-HLW, and may be managed and disposed of in place as LLW.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2018. Anne Marie White, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11736 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Case Number 2017-007, EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0041] Notice of Petition for Waiver of AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. From the Department of Energy Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures and Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver, and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (“AHT”), seeking a waiver from the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (collectively “commercial refrigeration equipment”). AHT seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing twenty-four commercial freezer basic models, identified by AHT as part of its petition, that do not have a defrost cycle when the units are operated in freezer mode. (AHT states that the specified units can operate as a freezer, ice-cream freezer, and refrigerator.) AHT seeks to test and rate the specified basic models using an alternate test procedure to account for the lack of any defrost cycles or defrost capability when the units are operated in freezer mode. This notice announces that DOE grants AHT an interim waiver from the DOE's commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure for the specified basic models, subject to use of the alternate test procedure as set forth in the Interim Waiver Order. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning AHT's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure to inform its final decision on AHT's waiver request.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by Case Number “2017-007” and Docket number “EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0041,” by any of the following methods:

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

    E-mail: [email protected]. Include the case number [Case No. 2017-007] in the subject line of the message.

    Postal Mail: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Petition for Waiver Case No. 2017-007, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit all items on a “CD”, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

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

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

    The docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0041-0001. The docket web page will contains simple instruction on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. E-mail: [email protected].

    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. E-mail: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619, Title IV, § 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes commercial refrigeration equipment, the subject of this notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) Further, Part C requires the Secretary of Energy to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs during a representative average-use cycle, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is contained in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B.

    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 C was re-designated as Part A-1.

    DOE's regulation set forth at 10 CFR 431.401 contain provisions that allow an interested person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for a particular basic model when the petitioner's basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that either (1) prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). A petitioner must include in its petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii).

    DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2). As soon as practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(l). As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the Federal Register a final rule. Id.

    The wavier process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the Federal Register a determination on the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in the Federal Register a new or amended test procedure that addresses the issues presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(1). When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).

    II. AHT's Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver

    On May 16, 2017, AHT filed a petition for waiver and an application for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to commercial refrigeration equipment set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B. AHT petitioned for waiver for twenty-four basic models 3 of commercial freezers. These units are capable of multi-mode operation (i.e., as a freezer, ice-cream freezer, and refrigerator). In the petition, AHT notes that it has already requested waivers for testing this equipment operating in refrigerator mode and ice-cream freezer mode, and states that this waiver request applies only to the specified basic models operating in freezer mode. AHT states that when operating as a freezer, the specified basic models do not have defrosting cycles, and one is not possible. AHT states that that the current DOE test procedure assumes that commercial refrigerators and freezers have cooling or evaporator coils that need to be defrosted; however, the configuration of the AHT equipment when operated in freezer mode does not allow for a defrost cycle to occur. As such, AHT states that the DOE test procedure's provisions that account for a defrost occurrence are not appropriate for this equipment when operated and tested as a freezer due to their lack of a defrost cycle.

    3 The specific basic models for which the petition applies are commercial freezer basic models IBIZA 100 NAM F, IBIZA 145 NAM F, IBIZA 210 NAM F, MALTA 145 NAM F, MALTA 185 NAM F, MANHATTAN 175 NAM F, MANHATTAN 210 NAM F, MIAMI 145 NAM F, MIAMI 185 NAM F, MIAMI 210 NAM F, MIAMI 250 NAM F, PARIS 145 NAM F, PARIS 185 NAM F, PARIS 210 NAM F, PARIS 250 NAM F, SYDNEY 175 NAM F, SYDNEY 210 NAM F, SYDNEY 213 NAM F, SYDNEY 223 NAM F, SYDNEY 230 NAM F, SYDNEY 250 NAM F, SYDNEY XL 175 NAM F, SYDNEY XL 210 NAM F, and SYDNEY XL 250 NAM F.

    To address the lack of defrost capability, AHT requests that the equipment, when operated and tested as a freezer, be subject to an alternate test procedure that follows the requirements of the existing DOE test procedure, which incorporates by reference ASHRAE 72-2005, with the exception that no defrost cycles will be incorporated in the test protocols.

    AHT also requests an interim waiver from the existing DOE test procedure. DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2).

    DOE understands that, absent an interim waiver, it is not expected that AHT's equipment could be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of its true energy consumption characteristics. The DOE test procedure specifies test period and door-opening period start times that reference a defrost occurrence, which is not possible in the specified AHT freezer basic models. This lack of defrost results in no defined start to either the test period or the door-opening period under DOE's test procedure.

    III. Requested Alternate Test Procedure

    EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of equipment covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their equipment and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401, and after consideration of public comments on the petition, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by AHT in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, “Amended Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers.” AHT seeks to use this test procedure to test and rate specific commercial freezer basic models, except that the test period shall be selected as follows:

    The test shall begin when steady state conditions occur (per ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, Section 3, definitions, which defines steady state as “the condition where the average temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) from one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next”). Additionally, the door-opening requirements shall be as defined in ASHRAE 72-2005 Section 7.2, with the exception that the eight-hour period of door openings shall begin three hours after the start of the test. Ambient temperature, test simulator temperatures, and all other data shall be recorded at three-minute intervals beginning at the start of the test and throughout the 24-hour testing period.

    IV. Summary of Grant of an Interim Waiver

    DOE has reviewed AHT's application for an interim waiver, the alternate test procedure requested by AHT, and the operating manual for the commercial freezer basic models.4 DOE understands that the specified commercial freezer basic models are not capable of defrosting. As AHT stated in their petition for waiver, the DOE test procedure requires beginning the test period at the start of a defrost cycle and recording data for 24 hours, and initiating a door-opening period 3 hours after the start of a defrost cycle. As such, for the specified basic models, which do not defrost, there is no defined start to either the test period or the door-opening period under DOE's test procedure. Based on this review, the alternate test procedure that AHT proposes appropriately reflects the energy consumption of and is appropriate for the commercial freezer basic models identified in AHT's petition for waiver. Consequently, it appears likely that AHT's petition for waiver will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant AHT immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. For the reasons stated, DOE has granted an interim waiver to AHT for specified commercial freezer basic models.

    4 The petition for waiver and operating manual can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0041.

    Therefore, DOE has issued an Order, stating:

    (1) AHT must, going forward, test and rate the following AHT commercial freezer basic models (which do not have defrost cycle capability when operated in freezer mode) as set forth in paragraph (2) below:

    IBIZA 100 NAM F, IBIZA 145 NAM F, IBIZA 210 NAM F, MALTA 145 NAM F, MALTA 185 NAM F, MANHATTAN 175 NAM F, MANHATTAN 210 NAM F, MIAMI 145 NAM F, MIAMI 185 NAM F, MIAMI 210 NAM F, MIAMI 250 NAM F, PARIS 145 NAM F, PARIS 185 NAM F, PARIS 210 NAM F, PARIS 250 NAM F, SYDNEY 175 NAM F, SYDNEY 210 NAM F, SYDNEY 213 NAM F, SYDNEY 223 NAM F, SYDNEY 230 NAM F, SYDNEY 250 NAM F, SYDNEY XL175 NAM F, SYDNEY XL210 NAM F, and SYDNEY XL250 NAM F.

    (2) The alternate test procedure for the AHT basic models listed in paragraph (1) is the test procedure for CRE prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B, except that the test period shall be selected as detailed below. All other requirements of Appendix B and DOE's regulations remain applicable.

    The test shall begin when steady state conditions occur (per ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, Section 3, definitions, which defines steady state as “the condition where the average temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) from one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next”). Additionally, the door-opening requirements shall be as defined in ASHRAE 72-2005 Section 7.2, with the exception that the eight-hour period of door openings shall begin three hours after the start of the test. Ambient temperature, test simulator temperatures, and all other data shall be recorded at three-minute intervals beginning at the start of the test and throughout the 24-hour testing period.

    (3) Representations. AHT is permitted to make representations about the energy use of the basic models listed in paragraph (1) for compliance, marketing, or other purposes only to the extent that the basic models have been tested in accordance with the provisions in the alternate test procedure and such representations fairly disclose the results of such testing in accordance with 10 CFR part 429, subpart B.

    (4) This interim waiver shall remain in effect according to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(h) and (k).

    (5) This interim waiver is issued to AHT on the condition that the statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by AHT are valid. If AHT makes any modifications to the defrost controls or capabilities (e.g., adding automatic defrost to freezer mode) of these basic models, the waiver would no longer be valid and AHT would either be required to use the current Federal test method or submit a new application for a test procedure waiver. DOE may revoke or modify this waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect, or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(1). Likewise, AHT may request that DOE rescind or modify the interim waiver if AHT discovers an error in the information provided to DOE as part of its petition, determines that the interim waiver is no longer needed, or for other appropriate reasons. 10 CFR 431.401(k)(2).

    (6) Granting of this interim waiver does not release AHT from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.

    DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future basic models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. AHT may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional basic models of commercial freezers. Alternatively, if appropriate, AHT may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g).

    V. Request for Comments

    DOE is publishing AHT's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition did not identify any information as confidential business information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure, as specified in section III of this notice, to determine the energy consumption of AHT's specified commercial freezer basic models. DOE may consider including the alternate procedure specified in the Interim Waiver Order in a subsequent Decision and Order.

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 5, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Scott Blake Harris, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1919 M Street NW, Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20036.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Before the United States Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585

    In the Matter of Energy Efficient Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

    Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0025; RIN 1904-AC99
    PETITION OF AHT COOLING SYSTEMS FOR FREEZER MODE WAIVER OF TEST PROCEDURE FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

    AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (collectively AHT) 1 respectfully submit this Freezer Mode Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver 2 from DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment.3

    1 AHT's U.S. subsidiary is AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc., 3235 Industry Drive, North Charleston, South Carolina 29418 (tel. 843-767-6855). AHT's worldwide headquarters are AHT Cooling Systems GmbH, Werkgasse 57, 8786 Rottenmann, Austria (tel. 011-43-3614/2451-0).

    2See 10 C.F.R. § 431.401 (petitions for waiver and interim waiver).

    3Id. Part 431, Subpart C, Appendix B.

    Commercial refrigeration equipment, such as AHT's, has recently become subject to a new regulatory regime. This includes new test procedures 4 and efficiency standards.5 On October 25, 2016,6 AHT filed an initial Petition for Waiver covering its multi-mode appliances that can operate, with the flip of a switch, as either a refrigerator, a freezer, or an ice cream freezer. As set forth in that Petition, the AHT appliances are also unusual in that their cooling coils are built into the body of the units. This means the cooling coils are not exposed to the air and do not get covered with frost. This also means the coils do not need to be defrosted for the appliances to be operated effectively. Rather, any defrost cycle is run for esthetic reasons only. As a result, AHT appliances run a defrost cycle less often than the testing procedures assumed and needed a modified testing protocol to measure energy usage accurately. Thus AHT filed its initial Petition for Waiver.

    4Id. Part 431, Subpart C, Appendix B, as adopted, 79 Fed. Reg. 22277 (April 21, 2014).

    5Id. § 431.66, as adopted, 79 Fed. Reg. 17725 (March 28, 2014).

    6 Case No. CR-006.

    Following the filing of its initial Petition, AHT was advised by the Department that each mode in which its appliances operated would have to be tested separately, and thus each mode in which an appliance operated would have to be listed as a separate model. AHT complied with this instruction. Since the initial Petition for Waiver was filed, however, AHT decided to change the operation of its appliances when they are operating in freezer mode—by eliminating any defrost cycle whatsoever. This meant that even the test proposed in its initial Petition for Waiver was insufficient to measure the energy usage of the AHT appliances when operating in freezer mode. Accordingly, AHT requested that “freezer mode” be eliminated from the models covered by its original waiver Petition.7 AHT now seeks a Freezer Mode Waiver to cover the testing of its multi-mode appliances when they are operating in freezer mode.

    7See Letter from Scott Blake Harris to Ashley Armstrong, Case No. CR-006 (May 2, 2017).

    I. Basic Models for Which a Waiver is Requested

    The basic models for which a waiver is requested are set forth in Appendix I. These appliances are all multi-mode display merchandisers with transparent doors. They are capable of operating in refrigerator mode, freezer mode, and ice cream freezer mode. They are distributed in commerce under the AHT brand name. A waiver has already been requested for the testing of these appliances operated in refrigerator mode and ice cream freezer mode. This waiver is being sought for their operation in freezer mode.

    II. Need for the Requested Waiver

    The DOE test procedure that would apply to the AHT appliances took effect on March 28, 2017. But it should not apply to the models listed in Appendix I.

    As noted above, AHT appliances do not need to be defrosted. As explained in the initial Petition for Waiver, the DOE test procedure understandably assumes that commercial refrigerators and freezers have cooling or evaporator coils that need to be defrosted for the equipment to function effectively. Indeed, the Technical Support Document for the test procedure essentially defines “defrosting” to mean melting ice from evaporator coils:

    As the air in the refrigerated space is cooled, water vapor condenses on the surface of the evaporator coil. . . . There are several methods available for defrosting the evaporator coil. . .8

    8 DOE, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Feb. 2014), § 3.3.1.11 (Defrost Cycle; Defrost Mechanism).

    In addition, the ASHRAE test procedure mandated by the DOE regulations provides that the defrost adequacy assurance test “shall verify that any defrost setting and arrangement is adequate to melt all frost and ice from coils and flues and drain it out of the refrigerator.” 9 Based on the assumption that all refrigerators and freezers that have evaporator coils from which frost must be melted regularly in order to function, the test procedure calls for starting testing with a full defrost cycle, and may require additional defrost cycles in a 24-hour period before the test is complete (depending on the expected operation of the model).

    9 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, “Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” § 7.8 (Defrost Adequacy Assurance). ASHRAE 72-2005 is incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure. 10 C.F.R. § 431.63(d)(1).

    But as currently configured, the AHT multi-mode appliances operating in freezer mode have no defrost cycle and one is not possible. As a result, the test procedure, which provides for at least one full defrost cycle in a 24-hour period is not appropriate for these models. It would grievously overstate their energy consumption.

    Accordingly, AHT asks for a waiver to test its multi-mode appliances in freezer mode without a defrost cycle. It would continue to test these appliances in refrigerator and ice cream freezer mode as set forth in its initial Petition, or as that test is modified by any initial waiver granted by the Department.

    III. Proposed Alternate Test Procedure

    Under the applicable DOE regulations, the testing protocol that would otherwise be applicable to the freezer mode of AHT's multi-mode appliances is set forth in ASHRAE 72- 2005, Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. It requires including defrost cycles during the 24-hour test period.

    Since the freezer mode of AHT's multi-mode appliances has no defrost cycle, the proposed alternate testing procedure for the freezer mode follows the requirements of ASHRAE 72-2005 with the exception that no defrost cycles will be included in the testing protocol. As a result, no direct or indirect 10 energy consumption associated with defrost operations will be included in the evaluation of the Daily Energy Consumption (DEC). Under the proposed alternate testing procedure, the test shall begin when steady state conditions occur.11 In addition, the alternate testing procedure uses the same requirements for door opening defined in ASHRAE 72-2005 Section 7.2, with the exception that the eight-hour period of door openings shall begin three hours after the start of the test. Ambient temperature, test simulator temperatures, and allother data shall be recorded at three-minute intervals beginning at the start of the test and throughout the 24-hour testing period.

    10 Indirect energy consumption refers to the energy used during temperature pulldown after defrosting.

    11 Per ASHRAE 72-2005, steady state is defined as “the condition where the average temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.2°C (0.4°F) from one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next” (see ASHRAE 72, Section 3, Definitions).

    IV. Request for Interim Waiver

    AHT also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the basic models listed in Appendix I. Based on its merits, AHT's Freezer Mode Petition for Waiver is likely to be granted. Further, it is essential that an interim waiver be granted, because without waiver relief, AHT will be at a competitive disadvantage in the market for these important products and would suffer economic hardship. AHT would be subject to requirements that clearly should not apply to such products.

    V. Other Manufacturers

    A list of manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition is set forth in Appendix II.

    AHT requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application.

    Respectfully submitted, Scott Blake Harris John A. Hodges Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 730-1313 Counsel to AHT Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. May 16, 2017 Appendix I

    The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following basic models that are manufactured by AHT 12 :

    12 The “F” designation—for Freezer Mode—will appear only in CCMS and not on the units themselves.

    IBIZA 100 NAM F IBIZA 145 NAM F IBIZA 210 NAM F MALTA 145 NAM F MALTA 185 NAM F MANHATTAN 175 NAM F MANHATTAN 210 NAM F MIAMI 145 NAM F MIAMI 185 NAM F MIAMI 210 NAM F MIAMI 250 NAM F PARIS 145 NAM F PARIS 185 NAM F PARIS 210 NAM F PARIS 250 NAM F SYDNEY 175 NAM F SYDNEY 210 NAM F SYDNEY 213 NAM F SYDNEY 223 NAM F SYDNEY 230 NAM F SYDNEY 250 NAM F SYDNEY XL175 NAM F SYDNEY XL210 NAM F SYDNEY XL250 NAM F
    Appendix II

    The following are manufacturers of all other basic models distributed in commerce in the United States and known to AHT to incorporate overall design characteristic(s) similar to those found in the basic model(s) that are the subject of the petition for waiver.

    AMF Sales & Associates (importing LUCKDR) ARNEG USA Avanti Products LLC Beverage Air Dellfrio (importing Liebherr cabinets) Electrolux Home Products Excellence Fogel de Centroamerica S.A. Foshan City Shunde District Sansheng Electrical Manufacture Co., Ltd. Hillphoenix Hussmann Innovative DisplayWorks Inc. Jiangsu Baixue Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. Metalfrio Solutions Mexico S.A. Mimet S.A. Minus Forty Technologies Corp. MTL Cool Novum USA Ojeda USA Panasonic PREMIERE Corporation Sanden Vendo Silver King Stajac Industries Thermell Manufacturing True Manufacturing Co. Turbo-Air Vestfrost Solutions
    [FR Doc. 2018-11937 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-93-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Beech Ridge Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/22/18.

    Accession Number: 20180522-0002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2667-001.

    Applicants: Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Upstream Change in Ownership to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1481-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEF Amendment to IA Annual Cost Factor Update (2018) to be effective 5/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1687-000.

    Applicants: Citizens Sunrise Transmission LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Annual Operating Cost True-Up Adjustment Informational Filing to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1688-000.

    Applicants: Meadow Lake Wind Farm III LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Rate Schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control to be effective 7/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1689-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & DSA Valencia Energy Storage Project SA Nos. 1023-1024 to be effective 5/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1690-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Informational Filing [Cycle 7] of Transmission Owner Rate Appendix X Formula rate mechanism of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5154.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1691-000.

    Applicants: BSW ProjectCo LLC.

    Description: Request for Limited Tariff Waiver, et al. of BSW ProjectCo LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1692-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised ISA No. 4242, Queue No. Z1-092/AD1-142 to be effective 4/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11889 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-85-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Company.

    Description: Addendum to April 16, 2018 Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of New England Power Company.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1391-002.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: SDGE Revisions to SGIA, LGIA and GIP, WDAT V.6 to be effective 5/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1626-008.

    Applicants: Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1029-004.

    Applicants: Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1609-001.

    Applicants: Carroll County Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Carroll County Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-499-003.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Hope PSA to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5226.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-865-002.

    Applicants: Power 52 Inc.

    Description: Supplement to May 22, 2018 Power 52 Inc. tariff filing (Asset Appendix).

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1402-002.

    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 205 to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1458-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Joint OATT Real Transmission Power Losses (DEF) 2018 Amendment to be effective 5/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180523-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1684-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5096; Queue No. AD1-063 to be effective 5/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/24/18.

    Accession Number: 20180524-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1685-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 4670; Queue No. AA2-059 to be effective 6/4/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1686-000.

    Applicants: Blackstone Wind Farm II LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Rate Schedule for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control to be effective 7/24/2018.

    Filed Date: 5/25/18.

    Accession Number: 20180525-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 25, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11888 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0008; FRL-9976-89] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    New Uses

    1. EPA Registration Number: 100-1270; 100-904. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0088. Applicant: Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Emamectin benzoate. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Artichoke, globe; Herb subgroup 19A; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; Celtuce; Cherry subgroup 12-12A; Fennel, Florence; Fruit, pome, group 11-10; Nut, tree, group 14-12; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16; Kohlrabi; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Vegetable, leaf petiole subgroup 22B; and Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10. Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Number: 100-1270; 100-904. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0088. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Emamectin benzoate. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Number: 1258-843. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0108. Applicant: Arch Chemicals Inc., 1200 Bluegrass Lakes Parkway, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Active ingredient: Sodium 2-pyridinethiol-1-oxide, CAS number 3811-73-2. Product type: Antimicrobial. Proposed use: Adhesives in paper towels. Contact: AD.

    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 62719-21, 62719-684. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0095. Applicant: Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Nitrapyrin. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B, Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16, Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07, Fruit, citrus, group 10-10, Citrus, oil, and Citrus, dried pulp. Contact: RD.

    5. EPA Registration Number: 62719-391, 62719-394, and 62719-578. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0128. Applicant: Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road 308/2E, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054. Active ingredient: Pronamide (Propyzamide). Product type: Herbicide. Proposed uses: Bushberries in Crop Subgroup 13-07B; Caneberries in Crop Subgroup 13-07A; Cranberry and Low Growing Berries in Crop Subgroup 13-07H; Pome Fruits in Crop Group 11-10; Small Vine Climbing Fruits in Crop Subgroup 13-07F; and Stone Fruits in Crop Group 12-12. Contact: RD.

    6. EPA File Symbol: 63838-16. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0190. Applicant: Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc., 500 Winmoore Way, Modesto, CA 95358. Product Name: Enviro-Brom Tabs Active Ingredient: 2,2-Dibromo-3-nitrilpropionamide (95.6%). Product Type: Antimicrobial product used as a microbicide, bactericide, fungicide, algaecide and slimicide. Proposed Use: Non-food use to sanitize trench floor drains, troughs, pits, and wet/moist drain areas in the Dairy, Meat, Poultry and Food Processing industries. Contact: AD.

    7. EPA Registration Numbers: 71711-16, 71711-20, 71711-21. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0161. Applicant: Nichino America, INC., 4550 Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808. Active ingredient: Buprofezin. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Fig; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except head lettuce and radicchio; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem group 5-16; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; Celtuce; Fennel, Florence; Kohlrabi; Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A; Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A; Cottonseed subgroup 20C; Fruit, citrus, group 10-10; Fruit, stone, group 12-12, except apricot and peach; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; Nut, tree, group 14-12; and Greenhouse grown peppers. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11923 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors met in open session at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2018, to consider the following matters:

    Summary Agenda:

    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.

    Memorandum and resolution re: Final Rule: Securities Transaction Settlement Cycle.

    Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated by the Board of Directors, and reports of the Office of Inspector General.

    Discussion Agenda:

    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Joseph Otting (Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; and that no earlier notice of the meeting than that previously provided on May 25, 2018, was practicable.

    The meeting was held in the Board Room located on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington DC.

    Dated: May 31, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-12090 Filed 5-31-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 2:25 p.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), seconded by Director Joseph M. Otting (Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B).

    Dated: May 31, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-12091 Filed 5-31-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Correction and Approval of Minutes for May 10, 2018 Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Kelly for Congress (KFC) (A17-05) 2018 Meeting Dates (July through December) Management and Administrative Matters CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-12095 Filed 5-31-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    Thursday, June 7, 2018 at the conclusion of the opening meeting.

    PLACE:

    1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.

    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Laura E. Sinram, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-12040 Filed 5-31-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 29, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Bank Forward Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Fargo, North Dakota; to acquire up to an additional 33 percent of Security State Bank Holding Company, Fargo, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire Bank Forward, Hannaford, North Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 30, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11910 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 20, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. The JTP Irrevocable Trust, the CLP Irrevocable Trust, the JDP Irrevocable Trust, and the SRM Irrevocable Trust, all of Baldwin, North Dakota, (Trustee, Jay T. Pahlke, Baldwin, North Dakota); for approval to join the Pahlke Family Group and thereby retain shares of Dakota Community Banshares, Inc., Hebron, North Dakota and thereby indirectly retain shares of Dakota Community Bank & Trust, NA, Hebron, North Dakota; and the Amber D. Staiger Irrevocable Trust, Hebron, North Dakota and the Ward L. Sayler Irrevocable Trust, Mandan, North Dakota, (Trustee, Amber D. Staiger, Hebron, North Dakota); Dale Sayler, Hebron, North Dakota; Justin D. Sayler, Dickinson, North Dakota; and KerryAnn Thompson, Bismarck, North Dakota; to join the Sayler Family Group and thereby retain shares of Dakota Community Bancshares, Inc.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    Kelley A. Rash, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma; to acquire voting shares of Arkansas Valley Bancshares, Inc., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of AVB Bank, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. In addition, Sally G. Wilton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Kerry K. Kimbrough, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Sara N. Cruncleton, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Cooper N. Rash, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, Henry G. Wilton, Austin, Texas, Samuel W. Wilton, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Kerry K. Kimbrough Revocable Trust, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the Neely W. Kimbrough Revocable Trust, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the Kelley Rash Living Trust, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the Kelley Rash Trust B, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the Cooper Nakai Rash AVB Trust B, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the Sally Wilton Revocable Trust, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Sally Wilton Trust B, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Estelle Brown Family Trust #5, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and the Estelle Brown Family Trust #6, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; to become members of the Kimbrough Family Group which controls shares of Arkansas Valley Bancshares, Inc., Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 30, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11911 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 25, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Freehold MHC, and Freehold Bancorp, both of Freehold, New Jersey; to convert from savings and loan holding companies to bank holding companies, upon the conversion of their subsidiary Freehold Savings Bank, Freehold, New Jersey, from a federally chartered savings bank to a state chartered savings bank. In connection with this proposal, Freehold MHC, and Freehold Bancorp, two de novo corporations, will become bank holding companies by merging with the former savings and loan holding companies.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 29, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11834 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of AHRQ to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “Patient Safety Organization Certification for Initial Listing and Related Forms, Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, and Common Formats .”

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2018 and allowed 60 days for public comment. AHRQ did not receive any substantive comments.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by July 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at [email protected] (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Patient Safety Organization Certification for Initial Listing and Related Forms, Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, and Common Formats

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Patient Safety Act), signed into law on July 29, 2005, was enacted in response to growing concern about quality and patient safety in the United States and the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The goal of the statute is to create a national learning system by providing for the voluntary formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs). By analyzing substantial amounts of information across multiple institutions, PSOs are able to identify patterns of failures and propose quality and safety improvements. The Patient Safety Act signifies the Federal Government's commitment to fostering and creating an environment in which the causes of health care risks and hazards can be thoroughly and honestly examined and discussed without fear of penalties and liabilities.

    In order to implement the Patient Safety Act, HHS issued the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule (Patient Safety Rule) which became effective on January 19, 2009. The Patient Safety Rule establishes a framework for the reporting of quality and patient safety information—by hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other providers—to PSOs, on a privileged and confidential basis, for aggregation and analysis. In addition, the Patient Safety Rule outlines the requirements that entities must meet to become and remain listed as PSOs and the process by which the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) will accept certifications and list PSOs.

    When specific statutory requirements are met, the information collected and the analyses and deliberations regarding the information receive confidentiality and privilege protections under this legislation. The Secretary delegated authority to the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce the confidentiality protections of the Patient Safety Act (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 95, May 17, 2006, p. 28701-2). OCR is responsible for enforcing confidentiality protections regarding patient safety work product (PSWP), which may include: Patient-,provider-, and reporter-identifying information that is collected, created, or used for or by PSOs for patient safety and quality activities. Civil money penalties may be imposed for knowing or reckless impermissible disclosures of PSWP. AHRQ implements and administers the rest of the statute's provisions.

    Pursuant to the Patient Safety Rule, an entity that seeks to be listed as a PSO by the Secretary must certify that it meets certain requirements and, upon listing, would meet other criteria (42 CFR 3.102). To remain listed for renewable three-year periods, a PSO must re-certify that it meets these obligations and would continue to meet them while listed. The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule also impose other obligations discussed below that a PSO must meet to remain listed. In accordance with the requirements of the Patient Safety Rule (see, e.g., 42 CFR 3.102(a)(1), 3.102(b)(2)(i)(E), 3.102(d)(1), and 3.112), the entities seeking to be listed and to remain listed must complete the proposed forms, in order to attest to compliance with statutory criteria and the corresponding regulatory requirements.

    Method of Collection

    With this submission, AHRQ is requesting approval of the following proposed administrative forms:

    1. PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form. This form, containing certifications of eligibility and a capacity and intention to comply with statutory criteria and regulatory requirements, is to be completed, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(a)(1) and the corresponding regulatory provisions, by an entity seeking to be listed by the Secretary as a PSO for an initial three-year period.

    2. PSO Certification for Continued Listing Form. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(a)(2) and the corresponding regulatory provisions, this form is to be completed by a listed PSO seeking continued listing as a PSO by the Secretary for each successive three-year period.

    3. PSO Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Certification Form. To remain listed, a PSO must meet a statutory requirement in 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(b)(1)(C) that it has bona fide contracts with more than one provider, within successive 24-month periods, beginning with the date of the PSO's initial listing, for the purpose of receiving and reviewing patient safety work product. This form is to be used by a PSO to certify whether it has met this statutory requirement and the corresponding regulatory provisions.

    4. PSO Disclosure Statement Form. This form provides detailed instructions to a PSO regarding the disclosure statement it must submit and provides for the required certification of the statement's accuracy by the PSO in accordance with the 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(b)(1)(E) whereby the entity shall fully disclose: (i) Any financial, reporting, or contractual relationship between the entity and any provider that contracts with the PSO; and (ii) if applicable, the fact that the PSO is not managed, not controlled, and operated independently from any provider that contracts with the PSO. In accordance with the Patient Safety Act and the Patient Safety Rule, the Secretary is required to review each such report and make public findings as to whether a PSO can fairly and accurately carry out its patient safety activities.

    5. PSO Profile Form. This form gathers information on the type of providers and settings with which PSOs are working to conduct patient safety activities in order to improve patient safety. It is designed to collect a minimum level of information necessary to develop aggregate data relating to the Patient Safety Act. This information will be included in AHRQ's annual quality report, required by 42 U.S.C. 299b-2(b)(2).

    6. PSO Change of Listing Information Form. The Secretary is required under 42 U.S.C. 299b-24(d) to maintain a publicly available list of PSOs. Under the Patient Safety Rule, that list includes, among other information, each PSO's current contact information. The Patient Safety Rule, at 42 CFR 3.102(a)(1)(vi), also requires that, during its period of listing, a PSO must promptly notify the Secretary of any changes in the accuracy of the information submitted for listing.

    7. PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form. A PSO may choose to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason. Pursuant to 42 CFR 3.108(c)(2), in order for the Secretary to accept a PSO's notification of voluntary relinquishment, the notice must contain certain attestations and future contact information. This form provides an efficient manner for a PSO seeking voluntary relinquishment to provide all of the required information.

    AHRQ will use these forms to obtain information necessary to carry out its authority to implement the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule. This includes obtaining initial and subsequent certifications from entities seeking to be or remain listed as PSOs and for making the statutorily-required determinations prior to and during an entity's period of listing as a PSO. This information is used by the PSO Program Office housed in AHRQ's Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety.

    OCR is requesting approval of the following administrative form:

    Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form. The purpose of this collection is to allow OCR to collect the minimum information needed from individuals filing patient safety confidentiality complaints with OCR so that there is a basis for initial processing of those complaints.

    OCR will use the Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form to collect information for the initial assessment of an incoming complaint. The form is modeled on OCR's form for complaints alleging violation of the privacy of protected health information. Use of the form is voluntary. It may help a complainant provide the essential information. Alternatively, a complainant may choose to submit a complaint in the form of a letter or electronically. An individual who needs help to submit a complaint in writing may call OCR for assistance.

    The forms described above, other than the PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form, are revised collection instruments that were previously approved by OMB in 2008, 2011, and 2014.

    In addition, AHRQ is requesting approval for a set of common definitions and reporting formats (hereafter Common Formats). AHRQ coordinates the development of the Common Formats, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 299b-23(b), that allow PSOs and providers to voluntarily collect and submit standardized information regarding patient safety events to ensure that data collected by PSOs and other entities have comparable clinical meaning. The Common Formats facilitate aggregation of comparable data at local, PSO, regional and national levels.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    The information collection forms that are the subject of this notice will be implemented at different times and frequencies due to the voluntary nature of: Seeking listing and remaining listed as a PSO, filing an OCR Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form, and using the Common Formats. The burden estimates are based on the average of the forms submissions received over the past three years.

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent to provide the requested information, and Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to provide the requested information. The total burden hours are estimated to be 100,724.88 hours annually and the total cost burden is estimated to be $3,833,588.92 annually.

    PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form: The average annual burden for the collection of information requested by the certification form for initial listing is based upon a total average estimate of 16 respondents per year and an estimated time of 18 hours per response. The estimated response number not only includes submissions by entities subsequently listed as PSOs, but also entities that submit an initial listing form that do not become a PSO. After submitting a PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form, an entity may withdraw its form or submit a revised form, particularly after receiving technical assistance from AHRQ. In addition, AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary, may deny listing if an entity does not meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule.

    PSO Certification for Continued Listing Form: The average annual burden for the collection of information requested by the certification form for continued listing has an estimated time of eight hours per response and 21 responses annually. The PSO Certification for Continued Listing Form must be completed by any interested PSO at least 75 days before the end of its current three-year listing period.

    PSO Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Certification Form: The average annual burden for the collection of information requested by the PSO Two Bona Fide Contract Certification Form is based upon an estimate of 42 respondents per year and an estimated one hour per response. This collection of information takes place at least every 24 months when the PSO notifies the Secretary that it has entered into two contracts with providers.

    PSO Disclosure Statement Form: Because only a small percentage of PSOs will need to file a Disclosure Statement Form, the average burden for the collection of information requested by the disclosure form is based upon an estimate of three respondents per year and estimated three hours per response. This information collection takes place within 45 days of when a PSO begins having any of the specified types of additional relationships with a provider with which it has a contract to carry out patient safety activities.

    PSO Profile Form: The overall annual burden for the collection of information requested by the PSO Profile Form is based upon an estimate of 70 respondents per year and an estimated three hours per response. The collection of information takes place annually, with newly listed PSOs initially requested to submit the form in the calendar year after their listing by the Secretary.

    Change of Listing Information Form: The average annual burden for the collection of information requested by the PSO Change of Listing Information Form is based upon an estimate of 61 respondents per year and an estimated time of five minutes per response. This collection of information takes place on an ongoing basis as needed when there are changes to the PSO's listing information.

    OCR Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form: The overall annual burden estimate of one third of an hour for the collection of information requested by the form is based on an estimate of one respondent per year and an estimated 20 minutes per response; the estimate of one form is provided due to the fact that no submissions have been received. OCR's information collection using this form will not begin until after there is an allegation of a violation of the confidentiality protections of PSWP.

    PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form: The average annual burden for the collection of information requested by the PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form is based upon a total average estimate of five respondents per year and an estimated time of five minutes per response.

    Common Formats: AHRQ estimates that 5% FTE of a patient safety manager at a facility will be spent to administer the Common Formats, which is approximately 100 hours a year. The use of the Common Formats by PSOs and other entities is voluntary and is on an ongoing basis. This estimate of the number of respondents is based on the feedback that AHRQ has received during meetings and technical assistance calls from PSOs and other entities that have been utilizing the Common Formats. As the network for patient safety databases (NPSD) becomes operational, AHRQ will revise the estimate based on actual submissions.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form 16 1 18 288 PSO Certification for Continued Listing Form 21 1 8 168 PSO Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Form 42 1 1 42 PSO Disclosure Statement Form 3 1 3 9 PSO Profile Form 70 1 3 210 PSO Change of Listing Information 61 1 05/60 5.08 OCR Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form 1 1 20/60 0.33 PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form 5 1 30/60 2.50 Common Formats 1,000 1 100 100,000 Total NA NA 100,724.91
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden hours Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate *
  • Total cost
    PSO Certification for Initial Listing Form 16 288 $38.06 $10,961.28 PSO Certification for Continued Listing Form 21 168 38.06 6,394.08 PSO Two Bona Fide Contracts Requirement Form 42 42 38.06 1,598.52 PSO Disclosure Statement Form 3 9 38.06 342.54 PSO Profile Form 70 210 38.06 7,992.60 PSO Change of Listing Form 61 5.08 38.06 193.34 OCR Patient Safety Confidentiality Complaint Form 1 0.33 38.06 12.55 PSO Voluntary Relinquishment Form 5 2.50 38.06 95.15 Common Formats 1,000 100,000 38.06 3,806,000.00 Total 3,833,590.06 * Based upon the mean of the hourly average wages for health care practitioner and technical occupations, 29-0000, National Compensation Survey, May 2016, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes290000.htm.
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ functions, including whether the information will have practical utility, and; for OCR's enforcement of confidentiality; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Francis D. Chesley, Jr., Acting Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11926 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces the Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on AHRQ-HS-18-001, “Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Pursuing Safety in Diagnosis and Treatment at the Intersection of Design, Systems Engineering, and Health Services Research (R18).” Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting.

    DATES:

    June 13-14, 2018 (Open on June 13th from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).

    ADDRESSES:

    Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20850.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this meeting should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone: (301) 427-1554.

    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with section 10 (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), announcement is made of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting on AHRQ-HS-18-001, “Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Pursuing Safety in Diagnosis and Treatment at the Intersection of Design, Systems Engineering, and Health Services Research (R18).”

    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.

    Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the “AHRQ-HS-18-001”, “Patient Safety Learning Laboratories: Pursuing Safety in Diagnosis and Treatment at the Intersection of Design, Systems Engineering, and Health Services Research (R18)” is to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Francis D. Chesley, Jr., Acting Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11925 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component and the MEPS Medical Provider Component.”

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by emails at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Project Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component (HC)

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.

    Major changes continue to take place in the health care delivery system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the NHIS as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.

    Households selected for participation in the MEPS-HC are interviewed five times in person. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.

    The MEPS-HC has the following goal:

    To provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population for: health care use, expenditures, sources of payment health insurance coverage

    To achieve the goals of the MEPS-HC the following data collections are implemented:

    1. Household Component Core Instrument. The core instrument collects data about persons in sample households. Topical areas asked in each round of interviewing include priority condition enumeration, health status, health care utilization including prescribed medicines, expenses and payments, employment, and health insurance. Other topical areas that are asked only once a year include access to care, income, assets, satisfaction with providers, and children's health. While many of the questions are asked about the entire reporting unit (RU), which is typically a family, only one person normally provides this information. All sections of the current core instrument are available on the AHRQ website at http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/survey_comp/survey_questionnaires.jsp.

    2. Adult Self-Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) will be used to collect self-reported data (rather than through household proxy) on health opinions and satisfaction with health care, and information on health status, preventive care and health care quality measures for adults 18 and older. This questionnaire is revised from the previous OMB clearance and received clearance on May 9, 2018.

    3. Veteran SAQ. MEPS includes a new self-administered questionnaire for spring of 2019 data collection targeting the veteran population. The questionnaire asks questions in the following domains of interest: if a veteran is eligible for VA health care; if a Veteran is enrolled in VA health care; coordination of care in and out of the VA health care system, services provided to Veterans in and out of the VA health care system, and VA eligibility priority groups, for Veterans enrolled in VA health care and for Veterans eligible for VA health care. To assist in the correct identification of priority groups, the questionnaire may also include items assessing the following: presence of service-connected disability; service-connected disability rating; presence of presumptive-conditions; timing and era of active duty; and VA receipt of disability compensation benefits. AHRQ worked with the Veterans Health Administration to develop the questionnaire content.

    4. Diabetes Care SAQ. There is no change in this instrument. A brief self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the quality of diabetes care is administered once a year (during rounds 3 and 5) to persons identified as having diabetes. Included are questions about the number of times the respondent reported having a hemoglobin A1c blood test, whether the respondent reported having his or her feet checked for sores or irritations, whether the respondent reported having an eye exam in which the pupils were dilated, the last time the respondent had his or her blood cholesterol checked and whether the diabetes has caused kidney or eye problems. Respondents are also asked if their diabetes is being treated with diet, oral medications or insulin. This questionnaire is unchanged from the previous OMB clearance.

    5. Authorization forms for the MEPS-MPC Provider and Pharmacy Survey. There is no change in this instrument. As in previous panels of the MEPS, we will ask respondents for authorization to obtain supplemental information from their medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) and pharmacies.

    6. MEPS Validation Interview. There is no change in this instrument. Each interviewer is required to have at least 15 percent of his/her caseload validated to insure that the computer assisted personal interview (CAPI) questionnaire content was asked appropriately and procedures followed, for example the use of show cards. Validation flags are set programmatically for cases pre-selected by data processing staff before each round of interviewing. Home office and field management may also request that other cases be validated throughout the field period. When an interviewer fails a validation their work is subject to 100 percent validation. Additionally, any case completed in less than 30 minutes is validated. A validation abstract form containing selected data collected in the CAPI interview is generated and used by the validator to guide the validation interview.

    Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Medical Provider Component (MPC)

    The MEPS-MPC will contact medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) identified by household respondents in the MEPS-HC as sources of medical care for the time period covered by the interview, and all pharmacies providing prescription drugs to household members during the covered time period. The MEPS-MPC is not designed to yield national estimates as a stand-alone survey. The sample is designed to target the types of individuals and providers for whom household reported expenditure data was expected to be insufficient. For example, Medicaid enrollees are targeted for inclusion in the MEPS-MPC because this group is expected to have limited information about payments for their medical care.

    The MEPS-MPC collects event level data about medical care received by sampled persons during the relevant time period. The data collected from medical providers include:

    • Dates on which medical encounters during the reference period occurred • Data on the medical content of each encounter, including ICD-10 codes • Data on the charges associated with each encounter, the sources paying for the medical care-including the patient/family, public sources, and private insurance, and amounts paid by each source

    Data collected from pharmacies include:

    • Date of prescription fill • National drug code (NDC) or prescription name, strength and form • Quantity • Payments, by source

    The MEPS-MPC has the following goal:

    • To serve as an imputation source for and to supplement/replace household reported expenditure and source of payment information. This data will supplement, replace and verify information provided by household respondents about the charges, payments, and sources of payment associated with specific health care encounters.

    To achieve the goal of the MEPS-MPC the following data collections are implemented:

    1. MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call. There is no change in this instrument. An initial screening call is placed to determine the type of facility, whether the practice or facility is in scope for the MEPS-MPC, the appropriate MEPS-MPC respondent and some details about the organization and availability of medical records and billing at the practice/facility. All hospitals, physician offices, home health agencies, institutions and pharmacies are screened by telephone. A unique screening instrument is used for each of these seven provider types in the MEPS-MPC, except for the two home care provider types which use the same screening form.

    2. Home Care Provider Questionnaire for Health Care Providers. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire is used to collect data from home health care agencies which provide medical care services to household respondents. Information collected includes type of personnel providing care, hours or visits provided per month, and the charges and payments for services received. Some HMOs may be included in this provider type.

    3. Home Care Provider Questionnaire for Non-Health Care Providers. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire is used to collect information about services provided in the home by non-health care workers to household respondents because of a medical condition; for example, cleaning or yard work, transportation, shopping, or child care.

    4. Medical Event Questionnaire for Office-Based Providers. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire is for office-based physicians, including doctors of medicine (MDs) and osteopathy (DOs), as well as providers practicing under the direction or supervision of an MD or DO (e.g., physician assistants and nurse practitioners working in clinics). Providers of care in private offices as well as staff model HMOs are included.

    5. Medical Event Questionnaire for Separately Billing Doctors. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire collects information from physicians identified by hospitals (during the Hospital Event data collection) as providing care to sampled persons during the course of inpatient, outpatient department or emergency room care, but who bill separately from the hospital.

    6. Hospital Event Questionnaire. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire is used to collect information about hospital events, including inpatient stays, outpatient department, and emergency room visits. Hospital data are collected not only from the billing department, but from medical records and administrative records departments as well. Medical records departments are contacted to determine the names of all the doctors who treated the patient during a stay or visit. In many cases, the hospital administrative office also has to be contacted to determine whether the doctors identified by medical records billed separately from the hospital; doctors that do bill separately from the hospital will be contacted as part of the Medical Event Questionnaire for Separately Billing Doctors. HMOs are included in this provider type.

    7. Institutions Event Questionnaire. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire is used to collect information about institution events, including nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and skilled nursing facilities. Institution data are collected not only from the billing department, but from medical records and administrative records departments as well. Medical records departments are contacted to determine the names of all the doctors who treated the patient during a stay. In many cases, the institution's administrative office also has to be contacted to determine whether the doctors identified by medical records billed separately from the institution itself. Some HMOs may be included in this provider type.

    8. Pharmacy Data Collection Questionnaire. There is no change in this instrument. This questionnaire requests the NDC and when that is not available the prescription name, strength and form as well as the date prescription was filled, payments by source, the quantity, and person for whom the prescription was filled. When the NDC is available, we do not ask for prescription name, strength or form because that information is embedded in the NDC; this reduces burden on the respondent. Most pharmacies have the requested information available in electronic format and respond by providing a computer generated printout of the patient's prescription information. If the computerized form is unavailable, the pharmacy can report their data to a telephone interviewer. Pharmacies are also able to provide a CD-ROM with the requested information if that is preferred. HMOs are included in this provider type.

    Dentists, optometrists, psychologists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and others not providing care under the supervision of a MD or DO are considered out of scope for the MEPS-MPC.

    The MEPS-HC and MEPS-MPC are being conducted by AHRQ through its contractors, Westat and RTI International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b-2.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC and the MEPS-MPC

    The MEPS-HC Core Interview will be completed by 13,338 * (see note below Exhibit 1) “family level” respondents, also referred to as RU respondents. Since the MEPS-HC consists of 5 rounds of interviewing covering a full two years of data, the annual average number of responses per respondent is 2.5 responses per year. The MEPS-HC core requires an average response time of 92 minutes to administer. The Adult Female SAQ will be completed once a year by each female person in the RU that is 18 years old and older, an estimated 12,984 persons. The Adult Male SAQ will be completed once a year by each male person in the RU that is 18 years old and older, an estimated 11,985 persons. The Adult SAQs each require an average of 7 minutes to complete. The Diabetes care SAQ will be completed once a year by each person in the RU identified as having diabetes, an estimated 2,072 persons, and takes about 3 minutes to complete. The Veteran SAQ will be completed once by each in-scope person who is a veteran of the U.S. military identified in the Round 1, Panel 23 interview, an estimated 1,350 persons. The Veteran SAQ requires an average of 15 minutes to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey will be completed once for each medical provider seen by any RU member. The 12,804 RUs in the MEPS-HC will complete an average of 5.4 authorization forms, which require about 3 minutes each to complete. The authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey will be completed once for each pharmacy for any RU member who has obtained a prescription medication. RUs will complete an average of 3.1 forms, which take about 3 minutes to complete. About one third of all interviewed RUs will complete a validation interview as part of the MEPS-HC quality control, which takes an average of 5 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-HC are estimated to be 60,278 hours.

    All medical providers and pharmacies included in the MEPS-MPC will receive a screening call and the MEPS-MPC uses 7 different questionnaires; 6 for medical providers and 1 for pharmacies. Each questionnaire is relatively short and requires 2 to 19 minutes to complete. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-MPC are estimated to be 17,388 hours. The total annual burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be 77,666 hours.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. The annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC is estimated to be $1,438,233; the annual cost burden for the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $291,595. The total annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be $1,729,828.

    The MEPS-MPC interviewer will be authorized to offer remuneration to providers who present cost as a salient objection to responding or if a flat fee is applied to any request for medical or billing records. Based on the past cycle of data collection fewer than one third of providers will request remuneration. Exhibit 3 shows the total and average per record remuneration by provider type, based on the 2016 data collection, the most recent year for which data is available. For those providers that required remuneration the average payment per medical record was $37.80, this compares to $32.98 in 2010.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    MEPS-HC MEPS-HC Core Interview * 13,338 2.5 92/60 51,129 Adult Female SAQ 12,984 1 7/60 1,515 Adult Male SAQ 11,985 1 7/60 1,398 Diabetes care SAQ 2,072 1 3/60 104 Veteran SAQ 1,350 1 15/60 338 Authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey 12,804 5.4 3/60 3,457 Authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey 12,804 3.1 3/60 1,985 MEPS-HC Validation Interview 4,225 1 5/60 352 Subtotal for the MEPS-HC 71,562 na na 60,278 MEPS-MPC MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call ** 36,598 1 2/60 1,220 Home care for health care providers questionnaire 635 1.53 9/60 146 Home care for non-health care providers questionnaire 11 1 11/60 2 Office-based providers questionnaire 11,210 1.65 10/60 3,083 Separately billing doctors questionnaire 12,397 3.46 13/60 9,294 Hospitals questionnaire 5,310 3.26 9/60 2,597 Institutions (non-hospital) questionnaire 116 2.05 9/60 36 Pharmacies questionnaire 6,919 2.92 3/60 1,010 Subtotal for the MEPS-MPC 73,196 na na 17,388 Grand Total 144,758 na na 77,666 * While the expected number of responding units for the annual estimates is 12,804, it is necessary to adjust for survey attrition of initial respondents by a factor of 0.96 (13,338 = 12,804/0.96). ** There are 6 different contact guides; one for office based, separately billing doctor, hospital, institution, and pharmacy provider types, and the two home care provider types use the same contact guide.
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden hours Average
  • hourly
  • wage rate
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • MEPS-HC MEPS-HC Core Interview 13,338 51,129 * $23.86 $1,219,938 Adult Female SAQ 12,984 1,515 * 23.86 36,148 Adult Male SAQ 11,985 1,398 * 23.86 33,356 Diabetes care SAQ 2,072 104 * 23.86 2,481 Veteran SAQ 1,350 338 * 23.86 8,065 Authorization forms for the MEPS-MPC Provider Survey 12,804 3,457 * 23.86 82,484 Authorization form for the MEPS-MPC Pharmacy Survey 12,804 1,985 * 23.86 47,362 MEPS-HC Validation Interview 4,225 352 * 23.86 8,399 Subtotal for the MEPS-HC 71,562 60,278 na 1,438,233 MEPS-MPC MPC Contact Guide/Screening Call 36,598 1,220 ** 16.85 20,557 Home care for health care providers questionnaire 635 146 ** 16.85 2,460 Home care for non-health care providers questionnaire 11 2 ** 16.85 34 Office-based providers questionnaire 11,210 3,083 ** 16.85 51,949 Separately billing doctors questionnaire 12,397 9,294 ** 16.85 156,604 Hospitals questionnaire 5,310 2,597 ** 16.85 43,759 Institutions (non-hospital) questionnaire 116 36 ** 16.85 607 Pharmacies questionnaire 6,919 1,010 *** 15.47 15,625 Subtotal for the MEPS-MPC 73,196 17,388 na 291,595 Grand Total 144,758 77,666 na 1,729,828 * Mean hourly wage for All Occupations (00-0000). ** Mean hourly wage for Medical Secretaries (43-6013). *** Mean hourly wage for Pharmacy Technicians (29-2052).

    Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000.

    Exhibit 3—Total and Average Remuneration by Provider Type for the MEPS-MPC Provider type Number of
  • records with
  • payment
  • Average
  • payment
  • Total
  • remuneration
  • Hospital 1,718 $43.99 $75,575 Office Based Providers 678 33.88 22,971 Institutions 1 63.71 64 Home Care Provider (Health Care Providers) 4 78.50 314 Home Care Provider (Non-Health Care Providers) 0 0 0 Pharmacy 10,305 35.69 367,785 Separately Billing Doctors 412 70.60 29,087 Total MPC 13,118 495,796
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Francis D. Chesley, Jr., Acting Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11927 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1540] Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials; 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 “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide the pharmaceutical industry, clinical investigators, and institutional review boards with information to facilitate the inclusion of adolescent patients (for purposes of this draft guidance defined as ages 12 to 17) in relevant adult oncology clinical trials. The draft guidance focuses on appropriate criteria for inclusion in adult trials at various stages of drug development, considerations for dosing and pharmacokinetic evaluations, safety monitoring, and ethical requirements.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 3, 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-1540 for “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” 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 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:

    Meredith K. Chuk, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266, 301-796-2320; 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 “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide the pharmaceutical industry, clinical investigators, and institutional review boards with information to facilitate the inclusion of adolescent patients (for purposes of this draft guidance defined as ages 12 to 17) in relevant adult oncology clinical trials. The following topics are the focus of this guidance: (1) Appropriate criteria for inclusion in adult trials at various stages of drug development; (2) considerations for dosing and pharmacokinetic evaluations; (3) safety monitoring; and (4) ethical requirements.

    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 “Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11828 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4364-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] North Carolina; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4364-DR), dated May 8, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATE:

    The amendment was issued on May 17, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Glen Sachtleben, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Elizabeth Turner as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11874 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1831] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472 (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) David I. Maurstad, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation (Acting), Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and
  • case No.
  • Chief executive officer
  • of community
  • Community map
  • repository
  • Online location of letter of map revision Date of
  • modification
  • Community No.
    Arizona: Maricopa City of El Mirage (18-09-0120P) The Honorable Lana Mook, Mayor, City of El Mirage, 10000 North El Mirage Road, El Mirage, AZ 85335 City Hall, 14405 North Palm Street, El Mirage, AZ 85335 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 10, 2018 040041 Maricopa City of Surprise (18-09-0120P) The Honorable Sharon Wolcott, Mayor, City of Surprise, 16000 North Civic Center Plaza, Surprise, AZ 85003 Public Works Department, Engineering Development Services, 16000 North Civic Center Plaza, Surprise, AZ 85374 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 10, 2018 040053 Mohave Town of Colorado City (17-09-2669P) The Honorable Joseph Allred, Mayor, Town of Colorado City, P.O. Box 70, Colorado City, AZ 86021 Town Hall, 25 South Central, Colorado City, AZ 86401 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 13, 2018 040059 Mohave Unincorporated Areas of Mohave County (17-09-2669P) The Honorable Gary Watson, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Mohave County, 700 West Beale Street, Kingman, AZ 86402 Mohave County Administration Building, 700 West Beale Street, Kingman, AZ 86402 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 13, 2018 040058 California: Riverside City of Desert Hot Springs (18-09-0176P) The Honorable Scott Matas, Mayor, City of Desert Hot Springs, 65950 Pierson Boulevard, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 Planning Department, 65950 Pierson Boulevard, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 10, 2018 060251 Florida: St. Johns Unincorporated Areas of St. Johns County (18-04-2271P) The Honorable Henry Dean, Chairman, St. Johns County Board of Commissioners, St. Johns County Administration, 500 San Sebastian View, St. Augustine, FL 32084 St. Johns County, Permitting Center, 4040 Lewis Speedway, St. Augustine, FL 32084 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 17, 2018 125147 Minnesota: Dakota City of Coates (18-05-2617P) The Honorable Craig Franzmeier, Mayor, City of Coates, 3033 160th Street East, Rosemount, MN 55068 City Clerk's Office, 15970 Comstock Avenue, Rosemount, MN 55068 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 10, 2018 270728 Dakota Unincorporated Areas of Dakota County (18-05-2617P) The Honorable Kathleen A. Gaylord, Chair, Dakota County Board of Commissioners, Dakota County Administration Center, 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 Dakota County Administrator Center, 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 10, 2018 270101 Nevada: Douglas Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County (17-09-1559P) The Honorable Steve Thaler, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County, P.O. Box 218, Minden, NV 89423 Douglas County Community Development, 1594 Esmeralda Avenue, Minden, NV 89423 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 23, 2018 320008 New York: Dutchess Town of Washington (18-02-0573P) The Honorable Gary E. Ciferri, Supervisor, Town of Washington, P.O. Box 667, Millbrook, NY 12545 Washington Town Hall, 10 Reservoir Drive, Millbrook, NY 12545 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 361147 Dutchess Village of Millbrook (18-02-0573P) The Honorable Rod Brown, Mayor, Village of Millbrook, P.O. Box 349, Millbrook, NY 12545 Village of Millbrook, 35 Merritt Avenue, Millbrook, NY 12545 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 360219 Ohio: Warren City of Springboro (18-05-0285P) The Honorable John Agenbroad, Mayor, City of Springboro, 320 West Central Avenue, Springboro, OH 45066 Springboro Municipal Building, 320 West Central Avenue, Springboro, OH 45066 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 10, 2018 390564 Texas: Dallas Town of Highland Park (18-06-0588P) The Honorable Joel T. Williams, III, Mayor, Town of Highland Park, 4700 Drexel Drive, Highland Park, TX 75205 Public Works Department, 4700 Drexel Drive, Highland Park, TX 75205 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 3, 2018 480178 Washington: Kittitas City of Ellensburg, (17-10-1541P) The Honorable Bruce Tabb, Mayor, City of Ellensburg, City Hall, 501 North Anderson Street, Ellensburg, WA 98926 City Hall, 501 North Anderson Street, Ellensburg, WA 98926. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 17, 2018 530234 Kittitas Unincorporated Areas of Kittitas County, (17-10-1541P) The Honorable Laura Osiadacz, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Kittitas County, 205 West 5th Avenue Suite 108, Ellensburg, WA 98926 Kittitas County Community Development Services, 411 North Ruby Street Suite 1, Ellensburg, WA 98926 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 17, 2018 530095
    [FR Doc. 2018-11942 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4365-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4365-DR), dated May 8, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued May 8, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 8, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Hawaii resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of April 13-16, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The City and County of Honolulu and Kaua'i County for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Hawaii are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-11945 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1829] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists co